Roe v. Wade CONSTI 1: Art.

II, Sec 12
37 Docket No. Date: January 22, 1973 Ponente: Justice
Blackmun
Petitioners: Respondents:
Jane Roe, et al. Henry Wade (District Attorney of Dallas, Texas)
Recit Ready Summary

This case was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court where in a pregnant single woman (Jane
Roe) challenged the constitutionality of the restrictive criminal abortion laws in the state of Texas, which
proscribe procuring an abortion except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted through a
medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life”. Jane Roe argues that the said laws are
unconstitutionally vague insofar as they abridge her right to privacy as guaranteed in the 1 st,4th,5th,9th, and
14th Amendments. The court ruled in favor of Roe, declaring that the right to privacy, as found in the 9th and
14th Amendment, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her
pregnancy. While the Court’s decision recognized the right to privacy, it also acknowledged that the State
may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining standards, and in protecting
potential life.

Facts

1. Jane Roe, who was opposed to having a child, sought to get an abortion in Texas where she was
refused to permit a legal abortion. Texas statute only allowed abortion when the life of the pregnant
mother is at stake.
2. Roe claims that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent
physician and that she was unable to procure abortion in Texas since her life was not threatened by
her pregnancy. She also claims that she was unable to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal
abortion.
3. Because of the foregoing events, she sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas abortion statutes
were unconstitutional, as well as an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said
statutes.
4. Another plaintiff in the lawsuit included a licensed physician (Hallford) who had two pending state
abortion prosecutions against him. He claimed that for many cases where patients came to him
seeking for abortion, he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the said statutes.
He further alleged that the vague statutes violated his own and his patients’ rights to privacy and his
right to practice medicine.
5. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint to that of Roe’s, claiming the same
constitutional deprivations and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Mrs. Roe was suffering a
neural-chemical disorder. Her doctor advised her to avoid getting pregnant until her condition has
materially improved. Should she become pregnant, Mrs. Doe wishes to terminate her pregnancy
through an abortion.
6. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade set the precedent for legalized abortion in the United
States.

Issues Ruling
1. Whether or not the Texas statutes invade Roe’s right to privacy in choosing to 1. Yes
terminate her pregnancy in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the 14 th
Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, sexual privacy
as protected in the Bill of Rights or among those reserved to the people by the 9 th
Amendment.
Rationale
1. The Court recognizes the right to privacy, but it is not absolute
The right of a woman to choose to have an abortion falls within the fundamental right to privacy.
However, the State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health and regulating
proper medical procedures. There must also be a compelling state interest for a government regulation

1
 to become enforceable. The Court refuses to recognize the concept of unlimited rights as rights must
be considered against important state interests in regulation.
2. A state criminal abortion statute that only excepts from criminality the lifesaving procedure of the
mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is
violative of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which protects against state action
the right to privacy, which includes a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. It
must be noted that while the State cannot override that right, it must have legitimate interest in
protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and potentiality of human life, each of which interests
grows and reaches a compelling point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
3. In this manner, the following rules were stated by the Court:
a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its
effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending
physician.
b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in
promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion
procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of
human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother.

Disposition

Petition GRANTED.