Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Meh

[QUOT E]**
Supreme Court
ABOUTSEARCHSUBSCRIBELIIBULLETIN PREVIEWS
Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)
314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ Blackmun ]
Concurrence
[ Stewart ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. 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. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. §*1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66. Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

But everybody knows this. RvW ruled on abortion based on right to privacy....As I proved earlier as well

Originally Posted by Jiro

I only care about Constitution.

Originally Posted by Jiro

you gave a wrong reasoning for Roe v. Wade. It's actually about women's right to privacy... not to debate on legality of abortion.

Originally Posted by Mimsy

She said three second trimester abortions were done to babies with Mohr-Tranebjaerg syndrome, it causes profound deafness.

Originally Posted by Mimsy

One was from a mother passing herpes to the fetus, making it deaf when the defect showed up on ultrasound and one was a genetic inner ear malformation, also seen on ultrasound. These are the ones she knows of personally from her hospital. I don't know if she can get her hands on the statistics documents, but she said she'll try.

Originally Posted by rolling7

Since we AD members are not discussing the Constitution right here, why are you even posting?

Originally Posted by rolling7

CORRECT....so why did you use it as an answer to post #224 when it has nothing to do with the subject?

Originally Posted by Jiro

ah... you missed out quite a portion of crucial part.

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy syndrome - Genetics Home Reference

passing herpes to fetus? let's see....

Birth-acquired herpes: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

then... they did not perform abortion simply because they found out their babies will be born deaf. It's because of these terrible conditions would lead to serious health complications.

Originally Posted by Jiro

ah... you missed out quite a portion of crucial part.

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy syndrome - Genetics Home Reference



passing herpes to fetus? let's see....

Birth-acquired herpes: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia


then... they did not perform abortion simply because they found out their babies will be born deaf. It's because of these terrible conditions would lead to serious health complications.

Originally Posted by Jiro

because Roe v. Wade is about women's constitutional rights and I'm here to defend it.


huh? can you please for once be coherent? I cannot understand probably 80% of your posts.

what in God's name are you talking about???

Originally Posted by Mimsy

I didn't know all that. She said they can't cope with a deaf baby. I see there could be more reasons for them to abort.

Originally Posted by rolling7

Could you for once not playing games and re-read post #224, which is addressed to you, and give a logical answer because post#240 sure as hell is not logical.

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes. completely understandable. that's why based on previous experiences, I know better to take one's word with a grain of salt because it's always fallible when it comes to people. Your mother is a nurse... not a doctor so nurse does not know the entire details of it but the patients' doctors do so she may have drawn a conclusion from bits and pieces.

.

Originally Posted by Jiro

for proving me right. Supreme Court has ruled this case on the basis of women's right to privacy..... not whether or not if abortion was legal or not.... or abortion based on right to privacy... thus ruling state's anti-abortion law as unconstitutional for violating women's rights to privacy.

Originally Posted by Mimsy

Yes, that seems to be what happened. Thanks for correcting me.

Originally Posted by Jiro

I'm sorry if you cannot understand it. I've tried my best and unfortunately, I cannot make everybody happy.

Originally Posted by rolling7

Why not stop tring to make anyone happy and just post a logical answer?

Originally Posted by rolling7

Why not stop tring to make anyone happy and just post a logical answer?

Originally Posted by Mimsy

I volunteer in an animal shelter and this topic reminds me of when a lady came in with a pregnant cat. She wanted the vet to give the cat an abortion shot so that she woulodn't have to deal with keeping the kitties or the trouble of finding homes for them. Very sad when it was done. I cried and cried. It just felt so wrong,

Originally Posted by Jiro

see previous post. I'm sorry you're not getting any answer you prefer from me. and I'm sorry if facts I have given you has made you feel uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Yup, it is tough for pro-lifers to accept that abortion is legal.

I don't see battle between pro-choice and pro-life will be over.

Originally Posted by Mimsy

I volunteer in an animal shelter and this topic reminds me of when a lady came in with a pregnant cat. She wanted the vet to give the cat an abortion shot so that she woulodn't have to deal with keeping the kitties or the trouble of finding homes for them. Very sad when it was done. I cried and cried. It just felt so wrong,

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Yup, it is tough for pro-lifers to accept that abortion is legal.

I don't see battle between pro-choice and pro-life will be over.

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's ok. pro-lifers will continue to lose for many years. I'm not very concerned about it. not even slightest.

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Incorrect, we accept the fact that it is currently legal..... What we refuse to accept is that it will always be that way.

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Yup but I'm skeptical about abortion could be under threat in most red states and they passed numerous regulation on abortion. They just want make more tough choice for women to get abortion. The state legislative in Mississippi passed the bill to tighten the license that result in will close one abortion provider so left state as no abortion provider at all. It means women will have go to other states like Alabama to get fetus aborted, however big issue is ugly harassment by anti-abortion protesters. I believe that California or New York are best place to have abortion without any backfire or harassment by stupid, annoying pro-lifers.
Mississippi governor signs bill tightening restrictions on abortion providers - CNN.com

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Abortion will probably be a large factor in the next civil war. Just my guess.

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Abortion will probably be a large factor in the next civil war. Just my guess.