ROE vs. WADE Facts: Roe discovered she was pregnant with her third child.

She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this sche e failed because there was no police report docu enting the alleged rape. She atte pted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthori!ed site had been closed down by the police. "ventually, she was referred to attorneys #inda $offee and Sarah %eddington. (&c$orvey would give birth before the case was decided.) Roe brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws ade it a cri e to obtain or atte pt an abortion except on edical advice to save the life of the other. ' three()udge District $ourt panel tried the cases together and held that Roe had standing to sue and presented )usticiable controversy, and that declaratory relief was warranted. Roe won her lawsuit at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for overbroadly infringing the *inth and +ourteenth ' end ent rights of Roe. %ade appealed the district court,s )udg ent in favor of Roe. Issues: -. Do abortion laws that cri inali!e all abortions, except those re.uired on the life of the other, violate the $onstitution of the /nited States0

edical advice to save

1. Does the Due 2rocess $lause of the +ourteenth ' end ent to the /nited States $onstitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion0 3. 're there any circu stances where a state ay enact laws prohibiting abortion0

4. Did the fact that Roe,s pregnancy had already ter inated naturally before this case was decided by the Supre e $ourt render her lawsuit oot0 Ruling: -. 5es. State cri inal abortion laws that except fro cri inality only life(saving procedures on the other,s behalf, and that do not ta6e into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due 2rocess $lause of the +ourteenth ' end ent. 2. 5es. The Due 2rocess $lause protects the right to privacy, including a wo an,s right to ter inate her pregnancy, against state action. Regarding the 7right of privacy7 issue, the court found that although the $onstitution (text) 7does not explicitly ention any right of privacy,7 the court ruled that there was a 7 constitutional right of privacy in a nu ber of a end ents in the /S $onstitution.7 The court held that the word 72erson7 in the $onstitution 7does not include the unborn.7 3. 5es. Though a state cannot co pletely deny a wo an the right to ter inate her pregnancy, it has legiti ate interests in protecting both the pregnant wo an,s health and the potentiality of hu an life at various stages of pregnancy. 4. *o. The natural ter ination of Roe,s pregnancy did not render her suit oot. The Supre e $ourt held that litigation involving pregnancy, which is 8capable of repetition, yet evading review,9 is an

Page 1 of 2

exception to the general rule that an actual controversy review, and not erely when the action is initiated.

ust exist at each stage of )udicial

The $ourt held that, in regard to abortions during the first tri ester, the decision ust be left to the )udg ent of the pregnant wo an,s doctor. :n regard to second tri ester pregnancies, states ay pro ote their interests in the other,s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the other. Regarding third tri ester pregnancies, states ay pro ote their interests in the potentiality of hu an life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the other.

Page 2 of 2