The Debate Over Roe V. Wade

The Debate Over Roe v. Wade

Many critics of the Roe v Wade resolution dispute that the Supreme

Court's decision was mistaken because, as said by Robert Bork, "the right

to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not to be found in the

Constitution". Consequently, they say the court did not translate the

Constitution at all in making their influential mark on the citizens of the

United States. Ronald Dworkin, on the other hand holds a different

perspective of this situation. He tends to believe that although the

technical terminology of abortion was not stated in the Constitution, the

simple right of privacy, which in his mentality, deals with termination of

a pregnancy.

Some critics of the decision regarding Roe v Wade feel that the

court is, in a sense, legalizing murder. Most refined critics on the other

hand believe that the Court's decision on this issue was indeed wrong, but

for different reasons. Like Bork, many feel that the Court had no right to

interpret the binding piece of our country, the Constitution. Since the

word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, right-wing lawyer Bork

states " Unfortunately, in the entire opinion there is not one line of

explanation, not one sentence that qualifies as a legal argument ". (pg,

103, Bork) He continues to say " It is unlikely that it ever will,

because the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not found in the

Constitution ". (Pg, 103, Bork)

Dworkin, distinguished author of the book titled Life's Dominion,

feels differently than the critics described above. He deems that the

court does in fact have the right to interpret the Constitution. Dworkin

agrees with Justice Blackmun's opinion in this great philosophical issue.

Blackmun feels that " a pregnant woman has a specific constitutional right

to privacy in matters of procreation, and that this general right includes

a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105,

Blackmun)

In 1965, another case regarding the right of privacy made a lasting

and influential mark as well. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court decided

that a state does not have the right to prohibit the sale of contraceptives.

Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court states that " If the right of

privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or

single, to be free from government intrusion into matters so fundamentally

affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child ". (pg.

106, Brennan) According to this statement and Dworkin, " the Court

therefore cannot logically hold that a woman's right to control her role in

procreation ends with fertilization without permitting states to outlaw

these contraceptives ". (pg. 107, Dworkin) This is another example of

Dworkin's belief.

Suppose that we decide that there is a constitutionally protected

right to privacy in matters of reproduction. Would this be enough to

determine whether states can ban abortions? This is another aspect of the

ongoing controversy of abortion as a whole. One side of this argument can

dispute that since abortion is in fact a matter of reproduction, they as

citizens are protected to their privacy. Therefore, this would not be

enough to prove to the Court that states can prohibit abortions. According

to this belief, abortions are a private issue and should have nothing

dealing with the government. As stated earlier a quote from Brennan, if

this is in fact a private issue, the Court does not have a right to

interfere with the bearing or begetting of a child.

Contrary to this opinion, some also feel that although abortions

are considered a reproductive matter, the government would be intruding and

disrupting on the intrinsic rights of the human. They feel that although

the rights the women have, single or married, to their private reproductive

issues, the inborn