In this American legal matter, a Texas law that banned abortions, except when
necessary to preserve the mother's life, was contested for infringing upon the
constitutional guarantee of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment and the right
to privacy, as established in the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut case. The court
sided with the challenge and confirmed that a woman's right to abortion is an
aspect of personal privacy.
The case of
Roe v. Wade is a critical United States Supreme Court decision that
revolutionized the nation's legal abortion rights environment. The case was lawed in 1973, and it specifically dealt with the constitutional statutes of the
law that outlaw abortion. Following this landmark verdict, Roe v. Wade fuelled
the debate on abortion right to reproductive freedom for women and the legality
of abortion for several years.
The case began when a Texas resident, a woman referred to the fictitious name
Jane Roe for confidentiality, challenged the criminal abortion laws of the
state. In those days, abortion bore a different label, and everywhere except
when the mother's life threatened by it, it was banned. The plaintiff even
claimed that these restrictions infringed on her constitutional right to
privacy, which included the right to terminate a pregnancy.
The Roe v. Wade decision was delivered by the US Supreme Court on January 22,
1973. The Court ruled 7-2 that a woman's decision to have an abortion was
covered by her right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process
Clause. The Court acknowledged that in order to safeguard the health of
expectant mothers and potential human life, this right must be weighed against
the state's interest in restricting abortion.
Based on the pregnancy's trimester, the ruling created a framework for assessing
state abortion laws. The Court ruled that a woman and her doctor should discuss
whether to end a pregnancy in the first trimester as a private matter. States
were therefore forbidden from placing major limitations on abortion during this
time.
The state's interest in controlling abortion to safeguard the health of mothers
became stronger in the second trimester. States could therefore create laws to
guarantee the safety of abortion procedures, but they were not allowed to impose
excessively onerous regulations that would prevent a woman from accessing an
abortion.
The state's interest in safeguarding potential human life becomes paramount
during the third trimester, when the foetus becomes viable outside the womb.
Except in cases where it was essential to protect the mother's life or health,
states were allowed to outlaw abortions.
In the
Roe v. Wade ruling, which upheld a woman's constitutional right to choose
an abortion within certain bounds, represented a major win for proponents of
reproductive rights. It cleared the path for the growth of reproductive rights
in the US and offered legal protection for access to abortion services.
Nevertheless,
Roe v. Wade also provoked strong criticism and backlash from
conservative and anti-abortion organizations. The ruling stoked the
anti-abortion movement and sparked attempts to reverse Roe v. Wade via judicial,
legislative, and political channels.
Later on in time,
Roe v. Wade encountered several obstacles in Congress, state
legislatures, and the legal system. Restrictions on access to abortion became
more widespread, and state laws requiring waiting periods, mandatory counselling,
parental consent, and outlawing specific abortion procedures were passed as a
result.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
(2016) are Supreme Court cases that have affirmed the fundamental principles of
Roe v. Wade. These cases have also established new legal criteria for assessing
the validity of state abortion regulations.
Despite the legal ruling, the debate over abortion rights continues to create
deep divisions in American culture. Although efforts to limit abortion rights
continue, Roe v. Wade is still at the centre of controversy and law.
Recently, conservative judges and legislators have worked to weaken or reverse
Roe v. Wade, raising questions regarding the future of abortion rights in the
US. Concerns among supporters of reproductive rights have increased due to the
Supreme Court's makeup, which includes justices who are thought to be more
hostile to the right to an abortion.
The outcome of
Roe v. Wade and the overall state of abortion rights in the
United States are still in flux, as the direction of reproductive rights policy
is being shaped by political conflicts, court cases, and public opinion. In
light of the ongoing discussion, the guidelines set forth in Roe v. Wade is
still at the centre of debates concerning women's access to reproductive
healthcare, autonomy, and bodily integrity.
Roe v. Wade's critics argue that the decision goes beyond the proper scope of
the court's power by creating a constitutional entitlement to abortion. They
argue that the Court's trimester approach is arbitrary and unsupported by the
Constitution's text or history. They also argue that Roe has polarized American
politics and sparked ongoing debates about abortion's morality and lawfulness.
Some argue that Roe should be overturned, leaving the decision to be decided by
the states through the democratic process instead of by a court decision.
The revocation of the
Roe v. Wade legislation is concerning as it could foster a
regressive societal perspective and undermine India's reproductive health
measures. The move poses a significant challenge to the movement safeguarding
women's sexual and reproductive rights. Given the global influence of the United
States, it has the potential to stigmatize reproductive health.
India's abortion laws are comparatively liberal in the global context. The
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2021, passed by the Rajya
Sabha in March 2021, amended the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
India's Abortion Act extended the maximum gestational period for pregnancy
termination from 20 to 24 weeks for specific categories of women, including
victims of rape, incest, and other vulnerable individuals (such as minors and
women with disabilities). In India, there is no gestational limit for abortion
if a medical board determines the presence of 'serious foetal abnormalities.
Section 3B of the rules under the MTP Act lists seven categories of forced
pregnancy, including statutory rape of a minor or sexual assault; women with
disabilities; or when women's marital status changes during pregnancy.
Although Indian courts are not obligated to follow Roe v. Wade as a precedent,
judges have taken into account the principles established in this case when
delivering judgments. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh marked the initial
instance in India where a judge cited Roe v. Wade, while examining whether the
right to privacy can be deduced from Articles 19(1)(a), (d), and 21 of the
Constitution, and whether these rights are absolute. Following
Gobind v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, a series of cases further explored the constitutionality of
the right to privacy. In the 2017 case of Justice (Retd) K.S. Puttaswamy v.
Union of India, the judges referred to Roe v. Wade to establish the Right to
Privacy as an aspect of the Right to Life under Article 21.
On October 13, 2023, the CJI-led Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed
that both the rights of the woman "must prevail" when it comes to abortion and
that there is a need to "balance the rights of the unborn child". The Supreme
Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on 22 April
2024 allowed a 14-year-old sexual assault victim to terminate her nearly 30-week
pregnancy, saying that this is a "very very exceptional case where we have to
protect her (the girl)". The Bench noted that the case report submitted by the
dean of the Mumbai city hospital "clearly states that continuation of pregnancy
against the will of a minor may adversely affect the physical and mental
well-being of a minor who is barely 14 years old".
The debate on abortion rights in American society persists despite legal rulings
like
Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade (1973) established women's privacy and choice
rights regarding abortion, sparking intense discussions and attempts to overturn
it. Conservative and anti-abortion factions have vehemently opposed Roe v. Wade.
Subsequent Supreme Court cases like
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and
Whole
Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) reaffirmed Roe's foundational principles
while setting new legal parameters for assessing state abortion regulations.
Despite these legal clashes, the contention surrounding abortion rights
continues to polarize American society.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court revoked
Roe v. Wade, the constitutional
right to abortion in its ruling. The Supreme Court's decision overturned nearly
50 years of precedent, allowing states to implement abortion bans. The ruling
removed the constitutional protection for abortion, paving the way for states to
restrict or prohibit the procedure. The Supreme Court's decision reversed
decades of established legal principles, granting states the authority to
regulate abortion as they see fit. By removing the constitutional right to
abortion, the Supreme Court's ruling empowered states to implement policies that
severely restrict or eliminate access to reproductive healthcare.
The 2022 Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (No.
19-1392) ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to
abortion. The Dobbs decision overturned the previous rulings of
Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, giving states the authority to regulate all aspects
of abortion that are not protected by federal law.
The former US President Donald Trump extolled his influence in abolishing the
constitutional right to abortion, labelling it 'a divine intervention,' while
cautioning fellow Republicans to exercise restraint in discussing the matter.
Three of the five Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the
1973 landmark case that protected abortion rights, were nominated by the former
President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
According to the current
US President, Joe Biden, Roe v. Wade was a sound
constitutional decision that upheld the fundamental rights to privacy and
liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has a profound
impact on society and women's lives. By declaring that the Constitution does not
protect abortion rights, the ruling empowers states to implement stricter
abortion restrictions. This could result in reduced availability of safe and
legal abortion services, particularly for marginalized communities and women.
The ruling reignites debates about bodily autonomy, healthcare accessibility,
and the government's role in regulating personal choices. Ultimately, the
decision has wide-ranging implications for women's reproductive health,
autonomy, and societal equality, potentially shaping abortion rights for the
foreseeable future.
Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email:
[email protected], Ph no: 9836576565
Please Drop Your Comments