Dissent

"Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_j.htm

"If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 173] Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_j.htm

Basically what Mr. Justice Rehnquist is saying is that the issue is not about privacy. It's about civil liberty. It's about getting a law passed so that there will be the liberty to have an abortion without having any penalty in doing so.

Your Own Argument

I absolutely agree with the final ruling of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case. It was blatantly obvious that women’s rights were being taken away by the State. The reason that this case has been argued over and over for years is because of religious beliefs and where the line between murder and prevention lay. If there was a black and white statement of what we should do in life then decisions would be simple and sweet. It’s not always the case, clearly on this topic.

I agree partially with what the dissenting Justices' had to say. I agree that liberty had something to do with this subject. I believe that a womans right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all we have in this world sometimes, and that those laws must be held to the highest respect. If we as a people decide to step back and allow our own beliefs of what is right and good and true be what is right and good and true for all people then we would be a bunch of dictators. There would be choas and anarchy. Our whole world as American citizens is based on the fact that we can say, do, feel, express, and believe anything that we want to. No one can say no to us. We can live our lives day by day doing the things we want to as long as no one is harmed or forced into that situation. But by not granting women to have an abortion is doing just that. We are forcing people with our now previous laws to be harmed mentally and physically when they do not want to be. Why would we want to harm our own citizens?

We must not, as a people, decide for others something so vital and so extreme in it's essence. Having a child is life altering, completely and entirely. What the dissenting judges believed is that this whole thing is a big cop out. They are claiming that this has nothing to do with privacy. But what is more private then a mother and her child? What is more important and special then if a women should or should not bring another life into this world?

Throughout the entire world we have starving people. Men, women, and children are on the streets or six feet under because of over population, and bad governements. There are wonderful people who would rather not bring another life into this world, but to care for ones who are already here. There are women who have been raped repeatedly. Who are we to decide that she must have that child? It's outrageous, and it is not my decision. I refuse to decide for another person something so private as that.

Rule of Law

"Basis of the Roe v. Wade decision:

Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy."

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm

So above is basically saying that since the United States Constiution says it's wrong, it is wrong. The United States Constitution is law above any law and because of this, we as a people must not refuse to give women the right to choose. We must liberate them!

Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning of the courts decision is very simple to comprehend. Basically, the Constitution of the United States of America is law, plain and simple. There is nothing above that law. Everyone from the President to the dog walker must obey these rules set into play by our founding fathers.

Decision of the Court

The decision of the court was decided that it was unconstitutional for anyone to revoke the right to terminate a pregnancy if the mother decides in complete consciousness and understanding. Below is the exact stating of the decision.

“It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

“Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.

We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_c.htm

The quote above is the only a fraction of the exact statement and opinion of the court given by Justice Blackmun. He goes on to say that “Jane Roe” even though is a fake name, is not fake in any form, but even more real because she holds a hope for women who want help and who are constitutionally held back.

Week 9 - Illicit Crime

Illicit crime is a big skeleton that is in every countries closet. No one wants to go and buy a 20,000 dollar purse when they can buy the same thing or a knock off for 40 dollars on the streets of Hong Kong. But in the end it is something that needs to be brought to the light. We do not need to be so naïve in this world to believe that a purse is just a knock off and it will not affect anything else or anyone else for that matter. Well, wake up world! Every time you have some kind of knock off sold on the streets you promote drugs, violence, illegal weapons, war, and even illegal human trading, aka slavery.

It does not seem like those things could even relate what so ever to the other. But low and behold, they do. When someone ships a load of illegal fabrics to make purses, what makes them not want to make even more money by sticking in a kilo of heroin in with it? A good way of looking at this type of trade is like looking at the effects of drugs themselves. If you have marijuana once a month, what would stop you from trying cocaine or any other type of drug? You are already doing something illegal, why not try something different? Marijuana has been labeled a gateway drug. Well, selling illegal items could be the gateway drugs to selling illegal weapons or helping people bring in humans that they are putting through slavery now or prostitution. They could even be selling humans for body parts!

Either way, it’s absolutely disgusting and ILLEGAL! I admit, I too have bought things that were knock offs. I never knew how intertwined those horrible things are with that purse I wanted to get. Lord knows it won’t happen again.

Issue of the Case

This case is before the court because it affects every single person in the country, and even the world. Every single day women get raped and have to deal with the effects of being left all alone to take care of this child that has the eyes of her attacker. How much more terrifying could this be?

Also, the women who are uneducated in sex or even where children can come from are being left with a child they did not even intend on having.

"According to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6 percent of news during 2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered topics, health came in eighth -- far above religion, education and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics." http://www.alternet.org/sex/113065/study:_u.s._media_keep_people_uneducated_about_health_issues/

It is amazing how people would take away the right of another human being. I would hate it if someone took away any of my rights. Now, I do not necessarily believe in abortion. I would not ever even have an abortion. But I will not take away the right of another person to make that choice. Life is all about choices, and what is the world without choices? It is no life at all.

The thing about this case is that it has been fought over for years upon years. I doubt it will truly ever end either. Especially with people who put religion over common sense and reason. I have said this previously, but I do not believe religion is bad, it just blinds people from being rational in situations that they normally would be completely rational about if religion was not tied into it. It is sad really. With that being said, in the Catholic religion they are against not only abortion, but also any type of contraception. I want to make it clear that I do not believe abortion is a type of contraceptive. They do not believe that you should be using birth control, condoms, spermacides, etc. The reason these types of contraceptives were invented were to help people who were married to that did not want to have any more children to have the option to still have sex and be in a healthy relationship. It also helps people who have diseases be able to have those types of relationships. There includes the people who are so wrapped up in believing that aids only affects people who are gay. But let’s not get into that too much.

"Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

In the end this whole thing has to deal with the fact that people’s rights were being taken away. The government also doesn’t believe in murdering young children either. They decided upon a time frame in which you would be able to have the abortion and that it would have to be in a hospital or clinic. They also wanted to make sure that people could have a choice. That was the ultimate goal.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm