410 U.S. 113, Supreme Court of the United States, Jane ROE et al., Appellants v. Henry WADE, No.70-18.

410 U.S. 113, Supreme Court of the United States, Jane ROE et al., Appellants v. Henry WADE, No.70-18.

Description

Argued December 13, 1971. Reargued October 11, 1972. Decided January 22, 1973. Justice MURRAY, concurring in the judgment. Since 1854, Texas, like many other American jurisdictions, has made it a crime to procure or attempt to procure an abortion, except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Tex. Penal Code Arts. 1191–94, 1196 (1961). Petitioner Jane Roe is an unmarried woman living in Dallas County, Texas. She alleges that, unmarried and pregnant, she sought to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions.” She was unable to secure a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy. Lacking the resources to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions, she was forced to continue her pregnancy. We note at the outset that the abortion question has prompted serious debate and, in some cases, legal reform. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), a companion to the instant case, presents a constitutional challenge to a Georgia abortion statutory scheme that was recently enacted for the purpose of liberalizing extant criminal laws and providing wider access to safe, medically supervised abortion. Ga. Crim. Code §§ 26–1201–03 (1968). The fact that these more recent, reform-minded statutes, as well as the older Texas statutes challenged here, are before this Court suggests a need to address the broader question of whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Here, Ms. Roe claims that the Texas statutes are unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right to personal privacy as protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority holds that the challenged statutes impermissibly violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to privacy. While I agree with the majority’s conclusion, I write separately to make clear that the Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to extirpate slavery and its vestiges, furnish additional grounds for invalidating the challenged Texas laws.

Source Publication

Critical Race Judgments: Rewritten U.S. Court Opinions on Race and Law

Source Editors/Authors

Bennett Capers, Devon W. Carbado, R. A. Lenhardt, Angela Onwuachi-Wilig

Publication Date

2022

410 U.S. 113, Supreme Court of the United States, Jane ROE et al., Appellants v. Henry WADE, No.70-18.

Find @ NYU

Share

COinS