The heart of the Roe decision was to defend a woman’s decision to have an abortion against viability (when the fetus can survive outside the uterus), which judges estimated in 1973 at around 28 weeks. . The court in 1992 said advances in newborn care had brought that number down to about 23 weeks of pregnancy, which is exactly where doctors draw the line today. The disputed Mississippi ban would ban abortions after 15 weeks – clearly breaking the line of feasibility.
The court said in 1992 that upholding precedent was especially important for cases that, although politically divisive, were not altered by new circumstances or changes in the law. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the judges kept a tight hold on Roe’s viability limit, stating that “viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is concerned. fetus is constitutionally sufficient to justify the law’s ban on non-therapeutic abortion.”
When the Supreme Court is remade, with three new appointees to former President Donald Trump, examines the fates of Roe and Wade, it will certainly weigh Casey’s principles as the justices uphold. institutional integrity and legitimacy.
Here are the key elements of those important decisions and the rationale behind them:
Roe v. Wade: Trimester Frame
Roe vs Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote. It is a product of a time when judges challenged partisan formations. Justice Harry Blackmun (an appointee of President Richard Nixon) wrote the opinion. The only opponents were Judge Byron White (an appointee of President John F. Kennedy) and William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee).
When the courts overturned the abortion ban in Texas, they stated that the 14th Amendment’s due process provision, which protects privacy, includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy before her ability to conceive. viability of the fetus.
Judges established a framework for trimesters as they balance women’s interests with state preferences: For the first trimester (about the first three months), the court held that decision. abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor; for the second trimester, a state may regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably relevant to the woman’s health; for the last trimester, after the fetus is still alive, the state can promote its “important and legitimate interest in potential life” and ban abortion, unless it is necessary for life or women’s health.
The judges acknowledged that the Constitution did not explicitly mention the right to privacy but said that in a decision line dating from the late 1800s, “The Court has recognized that the right of individual privacy or guarantees certain areas of area or area of the right to privacy, existing under the Constitution. … These decisions make it clear that only individual rights can be considered ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit within the concept of orderly liberty. self’, newly included personal privacy guarantee.”
The Roe Court said the right explicitly extends to activities related to marriage, contraception and parenting, and is “broad enough to include a woman’s decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.”
But the right is not absolute, the judges declared, referring to the state’s interest “in the protection of health, the maintenance of medical standards and the protection of latent life.”
When the court established the viability cut-off point, the court explained, “For the State’s vital and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘required’ point is viability. This is because the fetus may then be able to live outside of the mother’s uterus. State regulations on protecting the life of the fetus after its viability, so there is a good reason. and biology. If the State is interested in protecting the life of the fetus after viability, it may go so far as to ban abortion during that period, except in cases where it is necessary to preserve life. or the health of the mother.”
“One’s philosophy, one’s experience, one’s exposure to the rudimentary aspects of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitude toward life Life and family and their values, and the ethical standards that a person establishes and seeks to adhere to, all have the potential to influence and color one’s thinking and conclusions about breaking thai,” Blackmun wrote for the majority.
He added, “Our mission, of course, is to solve the problem by measuring the constitution, without sentiment and without bias.”
Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s New Standard: ‘Unwarranted Burden’
Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey was decided on June 29, 1992, by a 5-4 vote to assert Roe’s central holdings against Wade giving women the right to terminate a pregnancy before the possibility of pregnancy. exam.
Judges Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter join forces to write comments. Rehnquist, White and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagree. Part of the decision, upholding Pennsylvania’s specific abortion restrictions, came to a separate 7-2 vote, from which Blackmun and Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed. (The sole remaining member of the court in 1992 was Thomas.)
As in 1973, the bench is less defined by party politics. The only one of the nine who was not appointed by the Republican president was a white man.
The majority reaffirmed Roe on the principles of “staring decisively”, i.e. adherence to precedent. The Court reiterated that women have the right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. It also reaffirms that a state can restrict abortion after the possibility exists, if the law contains exceptions to a woman’s life or health.
However, the court removed the trimester approach and diluted the standard for when state regulation violates abortion rights. The court said the three-month framework did not adequately meet the state’s interests and that the new criterion must be whether a regulation places an “undue burden” on a woman who wants an abortion.
“The finding of an excessive burden is shorthand for concluding that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of posing a substantial obstacle in the way of a woman seeking an abortion with a single fetus.” “, the majority wrote.
“A statute for this purpose is invalid because the means chosen by the State to promote an interest in potential life must be calculated to inform a woman’s free choice, not hinder it,” the judges added. “And a statute that, while promoting a potential life interest or some other valid state interest, has the effect of significantly hindering women’s path of choice cannot be considered.” is an authorized vehicle for their legitimate purposes.”
The judges in Planned Parenthood v. Casey again stressed that the courts had previously afforded constitutional protection over individual decisions regarding marriage and contraception.
Referring to the practical importance of Roe’s precedent, the judges emphasized that people relied on the decision for two decades at the time and added, “The ability of women to participate equally in life The economic and social well-being of the Nation have been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive life.”
Considering the court’s integrity, the judges said overestimating Roe “would seriously undermine the Court’s ability to exercise judicial power and function as a country’s Supreme Court.” dedicated to the rule of law.”
In 1992, the judges warned against “surrendering to political pressure” and asserted that overturning a watershed decision “in the absence of the most compelling reason … would undermine the integrity of a watershed decision… legitimacy of the Court beyond any serious question.”
.
