Compare and Contrast Rules of Law

¶ … Rules of Law

It was January 23, 1973 and before the world knew, Roe v. Wade would change the laws surrounding the issue of abortion eternally. The decision and choice to terminate a pregnancy was illegal in Texas at the time, which was then challenged by the pregnant Jane Roe. She wanted to end her gestation in a safe and licit manner, and coincidentally the Supreme Court agreed in her favor. The ruling was the first time the court recognized the right to privacy incorporated a female's right, should she choose, an option to end her pregnancy or not. This landmark case not only validated and legalized the right to an abortion, but it interdicted prior laws regarding the act. Previously, abortion was only permissible when a woman's life was in danger and was necessary to save her life. Furthermore, the act of termination was acceptable if the female was with child under circumstances of rape, sexual incest, or if the fetus experienced abnormality in the womb. Due to this case, the services of abortion offered to women everywhere can be done in a safe and legal manner. Roe v. Wade was the precedent case that went on to affect similar contentions concerning abortion.

A constitutional right was established due to this case, which determined a woman's right to choose whether she wants the pregnancy or not is sanctioned. However, abortion under the umbrella of one's right to privacy is not entirely boundless since the state can assume responsibility in regards to the mother and fetus. The limitation set by the court was the state has the duty to look after the health of the mother and the potential life once the second trimester of pregnancy is initiated. The Supreme Court has claimed the state can protect the life of an unborn fetus if it is viable to survive outside the womb. In addition, the state has the right to prohibit the act of termination once it is determined the potential life can live externally. However, such act is excluded when the woman's life is in peril because of the unborn child. Basically, the limitation of the ruling was that abortions are legal and acceptable as long as the potential life can't survive outside the womb, which is around the twenty four to twenty eight weeks.

These limitations are reasonably set because it protects and looks after both, the female and the unborn life. During the 1970s, medicine was not as advanced as it is today, and the mortality rate due to abortion were much higher compared to now. Today, less than 0.3% of women who undergo the termination procedure experience complications, which is significantly lower than decades ago. Laws of limitations are set so the mother can't terminate pregnancy too late because the likelihood of death increases when the length of carrying the unborn child is elongated. Although it is a foggy and controversial area, I personally believe a fetus is a living thing when it can survive on its own, which is aligned with the Roe v. Wade outcome. I advocate the limitations because what a woman decides to do with her body is a personal and private decision. As long as the female's life isn't endangered and she decides to terminate a pregnancy, it's a decision that should be respected. Furthermore, I think it's important for the state to step in when the mother to be wants to undergo abortion at say eight months, which is unhealthy and life risking.

Throughout time until today, various cases attempted to undermine the ruling and permitting abortion, and one of such a case was in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the case, Pennsylvania law was challenged in regards to the restrictions placed on pregnancy termination. In the end, the ruling of Roe v. Wade was still upheld in that it is a constitutional right for women to choose whether she or not wants an abortion before the second trimester, and/or if her life is at risk. However, it was also ruled in the case and remains a fact that a woman must visit the physician, the person who will conduct the abortion, several times prior to the procedure. The limitation here is the time frame during which the termination can be done. I disagree with this limitation because abortion isn't something people think cavalierly about. A lot of thought goes into make the decision; the choice to terminate or not. No matter whether the woman thinks her fetus is a baby or living thing, it is an invasive procedure that literally tugs at her insides. Nobody thinks or treads lightly knowing what she must undergo. Again, as I've stated, what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business, so why play the waiting game and all the red tape if she knows what she wants is an abortion. The restraint in certain facilities can, has, and will continue to purposely delay the termination process because of the employee's own personal agenda, thus women are then forced to have the baby.