Roe vs. Wade (1973) is a case that has established the constitutional aspects of prohibiting or permitting abortion. It has become the most politically significant decisions that have influenced the view of the medical, ethical, and social aspects of abortion. By majority opinion, previous abortion decisions were not legally grounded and had no historical basis, nor was it the result of the influence of English law. Abortion is not the result of a nation’s historical or even cultural experience but merely the result of the adoption of restrictions. I agree with this view because abortion prohibition only came into being with the advent of ideas about how pregnancy works. The prohibition was not a product of the old law but came after common law thinking.
By majority opinion, the concept of abortion was a complex medical phenomenon to which there were no constitutional prohibitions due to a limited understanding of the point at which personhood begins. Nor was the recognition of the fetus as a person, so the ban on women’s privacy concerning medical care was not legitimate. I agree with this because, until a certain point, there was no understanding of the whole relationship between law and medicine. The majority, recognizing that abortion is a non-absolute part of the right of privacy, has established that pregnancy becomes an interest of the state so that the state can regulate this private life of women. I agree that it is a matter of dual interest and requires balancing the two based on medical evidence. The state has no right to interfere with privacy unless there is potential interest for person/fetus.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) is an anti-abortion case. Its history began in 2020 during Donald Trump’s administration and is now one of the most inhumane laws. First, most believe the right to abortion is not part of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not require the state to consider termination of pregnancy as part of mandatory legal practice. I disagree because a woman’s right to privacy includes all the necessary interventions. If among those interventions is abortion, which will preserve her mental, moral, and physical health, then the state is obligated to enforce it.
According to the majority opinion, the right to abortion has also never been represented, as reported in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997). Abortion must have historical roots to be federally accepted and be part of the traditions of the American nation. I also disagree: one cannot legislate a right to abortion because it did not exist before. If a phenomenon did not exist, it is because it was not studied or forbidden; that does not mean that it cannot be reviewed and considered as history progresses. Otherwise, many other legislative acts would not have been enacted either because they were not previously enshrined in the past and traditions of the nation. Consequently, it is illegitimate to prohibit abortion rights based on a lack of cultural experience.
In the majority opinion, Roe vs. Wade was flawed and resulted from the Court’s misconduct and public influence. It is explained that public power proved decisive instead of recourse to the law. I disagree that Roe vs. Wade was a mistake like many others (same-sex marriage or birth control) because it solidified the notion of freedom in American society. The public was influenced because the Court should listen to how their decisions affect the community. The Court neglected its duties and decided that the argument against abortion by right-wing Christians was more robust than the public’s needs. The crowd began to protest and was right to do so because their rights to liberty had been restricted.