The Pros And Cons Of Roe V. Wade

In opposition to pro-choice approval of legalization, an article of the Fordham Law Review, An American Tragedy: The Supreme Court on Abortion, delineates the decision in Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional on the grounds that the Court made egregious errors in the case. Byrn cites a number of mistakes, including the misinterpretation of common law, motivations behind nineteenth century abortion laws, the intent of the founding fathers, factual knowledge of fetuses, along with a disregard for the Supreme Court’s own definition of a person in section one of the fourteenth amendment compounded to generate the erroneous decision in Wade. As current interpretations of the fourteenth amendment include all human beings, especially the marginalized, as protected under the law, the exclusion of unborn children seems

Wade, Ely similarly disavows Roe v. Wade for a manufactured sentence. He first critiques how the Supreme Court disregarded the sense of “persons” in the Fourteenth Amendment and its application to corporations, but not the unborn. He proceeds to argue that fetuses’ constitutional rights are irrelevant from restricting abortion because states can force people to refrain from activities regardless of their constitutional protections. For example, he states that dogs are not people, but the state can prevent killing them. In addition, the Court provides no evidence of the framers’ intent or states why privacy is even involved. Both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution use privacy in the Hobbesian sense of freedom to protect from government interference, which does not infer bodily privacy. Ely also points out that the unborn are the disadvantaged minority in legislation compared even to women and that “abortion ends the life of a human being other than the one making the choice.” The Supreme Court’s unfounded constitutional doctrine further demonstrates the inadequacy of the