Você está na página 1de 2

In March 1970, a federal action was instituted against the District Attorney of Dallas County in

Texas, US. This action instituted by Jane Roe, a single woman, attacked the Texas statutes
concerned with the state’s criminal abortion legislation. The woman was unhappy with and was
seeking a court injunction to halt enforcement of the Texas criminal abortion statutes, which she
alleged were illegal. According to the Texas statutes, it is criminal to procure an abortion or to
try one, except where this is by medical advice intended to save the life of the mother.

Jane Roe’s intention to go for abortion was because she was not married and perhaps being
single, she might have anticipated an overwhelming burden if she sustained the pregnancy and
gave birth. Roe intended to undertake an abortion, “performed by a competent,
licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions”. Since her life was not
threatened by the pregnancy, the Texas statutes could not allow her to
terminate her pregnancy. Roe could not afford to travel out of Texas to
terminate pregnancy legally and safely. Because of this, she maintained that
her right to personal privacy was being violated by the Texas statutes which
she terms as unconstitutionally vague. The appellant blamed the Texas
statutes for failing to observe the right of the pregnant woman, inherent in
the personal liberty concept, which is contained in the bill of rights section of
the constitution as protected by the fourteenth amendment.

To be able to critically evaluate this case, we consider what the reasons and
interest of the state are in criminal abortion legislation. These laws have
come into existence only recently and are aimed at safeguarding the
pregnant woman’s life. The state is interested in controlling the conditions
under which abortions are effected because many deaths have occurred at
illegal ‘’abortion mills’’. The state is under obligation to protect all lives and
this must extend to prenatal life because life, as it has been agreed, starts at
conception. An exception would be sustained in cases where the mother’s
life is at risk, in consideration to the fetus life.

The states abortion laws were challenged because of the following; first, it
has been argued that there is no legislative background upon which they
were founded, to hold view that they were purposed to protect prenatal life.
The critics of state abortion laws therefore argue that the laws were enacted
to protect the woman, a worry that is currently unwarranted given the newly
developed medical state, hence these state interests’ laws re unjustified
today.

Those who challenge the state laws maintained that ‘’the woman’s right is
absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever
time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses’’. The
reasons they pose include medical, social cultural and economic challenges a
pregnant woman is likely to encounter during and after pregnancy.
However, having carefully considered all the facts, interests and existing
legislation, the Supreme Court’s decision as delivered by Harry Blackmun,
favored state regulation of abortion. As a Christian, I agree with the ruling.
This is because as noted in this case, ‘’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’’.

Você também pode gostar