Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court case involving a woman’s right to legally have an abortion. The case was decided in 1973 in favor of Norma McCorvey, who was pro choice. Henry Wade was the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a law in Texas that does not allow abortions. He believed abortions were only okay to save the life of the woman pregnant. Norma McCorvey goes by the name Jane ROE in the court documents, therefore we get the cases name, Roe v. Wade.
The plaintiff is this case is Norma McCorvey, because she instituted federal action against the defendant, Henry Wade. Norma’s case was that Henry Wade did not have the right to ban abortions; explaining how having an abortion is a person’s right of privacy covered by the 4th Amendment. Roe wanted to collate stare decisis within this case by bringing up the past case Griswold v. Connecticut. In which a Connecticut law criminalized the use of birth control via contraceptives.
…show more content…
In my option, I think Roe had a lot of history and previous laws to back up her side of the issue. For example, she had the Griswold v. Connecticut case to back up some of her points and the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Also Roe has the fact that the constitution does not define when a person becomes a person, which eliminates idea that abortion is murdering a person. I do think her augments are flawed at certain points. Especially when it comes to the thinking that you can get an abortion whenever you want during the pregnancy. I believe that is a little unreasonable and inhumane to the fetus. Roe on the other hand had some pretty good talking points as well. His best argument in my eyes was that we must allow the fetus rights as a potential human being and also how it should not be the women’s choice in what happens to the fetus. He pretty much declares that a fetus is a human being and that aborting it would be an act of