What do you think?
Rate this book
Roe v. Wade Decision: The Complete Text
The text of the Roe v. Wade decision that changed the course of America. This book includes the majority opinion by Justice Blackmun as well as the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart and the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist.
Read today exactly what the justices did and did not say in the Roe v. Wade decision.
Read today exactly what the justices did and did not say in the Roe v. Wade decision.
- GenresHistoryLawNonfiction
66 pages, Paperback
First published January 22, 1973
21 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
About the author
U.S. Supreme Court
20.4k books9 followers"The Supreme Court of the United States (first abbreviated as SCOTUS in 1879) was established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789 as the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.
The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (though none has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, many of the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C."
-- Wikipedia
The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (though none has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, many of the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C."
-- Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 19, 2016
I am fascinated by reading these Supreme Court decisions, and like seeing what legal precedent their decisions were based on. I think that this would be interesting for anyone no matter which side of the abortion debate your opinion falls on, to learn the constitutional reasons for the laws.
Some passages of this 40 page ruling that I highlighted include:
"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century."
"Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion."
This section about the Hippocratic Oath was interesting: "But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath "became the nucleus of all medical ethics" and "was applauded as the embodiment of truth." Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct."
And then moving to present day, the founding of America and the time that our Constitution was written:
"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy."
Also interesting was that the question of when life begins was not part of the decision: " We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]"
And part of the concurring opinion by Justice Stewart: " As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Some passages of this 40 page ruling that I highlighted include:
"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century."
"Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion."
This section about the Hippocratic Oath was interesting: "But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath "became the nucleus of all medical ethics" and "was applauded as the embodiment of truth." Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct."
And then moving to present day, the founding of America and the time that our Constitution was written:
"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy."
Also interesting was that the question of when life begins was not part of the decision: " We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]"
And part of the concurring opinion by Justice Stewart: " As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
September 17, 2023
I read this recently for my class on medical anthropology, and am now looking into Dobbs as well. Gives such an insight into the nuances of US constitution and how, unfortunately, Roe of course was not strongly grounded into the constitution. The constitution doesn’t explicitly protect abortion because of course it doesn’t, look at when it was written and who wrote it! The solution is not finding abortion in the constitution, it’s fixing the constitution itself which, unfortunately, I don’t know if I see happening in the near future. Also I’m Canadian so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
June 4, 2019
What did the court say
This case is good information to have. The Abortion issue like the slavery issue of the 19th century can not be solved by the courts alone. Legislatures must act, opposing side of the acts must go to court, and the courts must give their opinions and rulings. Here is what one court said.
This case is good information to have. The Abortion issue like the slavery issue of the 19th century can not be solved by the courts alone. Legislatures must act, opposing side of the acts must go to court, and the courts must give their opinions and rulings. Here is what one court said.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews