Political Science Roe v. Wade

Political Science

Roe V. Wade

Roe vs. Wade is the controversial Supreme Court ruling established in January 1973. In simple terms, the ruling allowed women to get abortions from their doctors or medical facilities during the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy). The decision said denying abortions denied a constitutional guarantee to the right to privacy. It gave women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and it has been controversial ever since. The camps are divided into "pro-choice," who want the ruling upheld, and "pro-life," who want to see the ruling overturned on moral, religious, and the rights of the unborn child issues.

The Supreme Court should not overturn Roe vs. Wade, because women should be able to choose to have a child or not. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child. If the mother's health is an issue, the mother has the right to choose her health over the child, and to attempt another pregnancy at another time. In addition, from a legal standpoint, Roe vs. Wade has already been visited in the courts of the country, and they have made their decision. There is no need to try the case again.

Before Roe vs. Wade, when abortion was illegal, hundreds of young women died every year due to botched illegal abortions. Many also traveled over the border into Mexico for unsafe and unsanitary abortions in that country. Illegal abortions are dangerous and can be deadly, and the country would return to that practice if the court's judgment were altered. In addition, states do have the right to enact laws to limit abortions in their state, and so, the state laws can be modified to reflect specific feeling and attitudes on abortion in certain areas. Many states require parental or spousal notification before any abortion can take place. All of this controversy has kept the ruling in the media every year since its' enacting in 1973. The ruling is still controversial and still debated, but the Court should not overturn it. It has historical and judicial value, and it should remain as law in the United States.