Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision – Justice White, Dissenting

Contact Your Elected Officials

Post: MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.*

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women [410 U.S. 223] whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.

Likewise, because Georgia may constitutionally forbid abortions to putative mothers who, like the plaintiff in this case, do not fall within the reach of § 26-1202(a) of its criminal code, I have no occasion, and the District Court had none, to consider the constitutionality of the procedural requirements of the Georgia statute as applied to those pregnancies posing substantial hazards to either life or health. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court in the Georgia case.

FOOTNOTES:

* [This opinion applies also to No. 718, Roe v. Wade, ante p. 113.]

For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

A Widow Inspires The World

Erika Kirk moved the nation with her speech two days after her husband’s assassination, vowing to continue his mission and grow Turning Point USA.

Both Left and Right Are Making Lists

The right admired Charlie Kirk for his faith and patriotism, while the left opposed him for dismantling their positions and narratives with ease.

Redemption’s playbook: The Senior

The Senior isn’t your usual underdog tale, it’s real, it’s raw, and it flips every cliché on its head with a playbook full of grit and plenty of aftermaths.

Kirk Assassination Oddities

Just like the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, PA, there are oddities that do not add up with the actual assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Pharma-Funded Medical Groups Threaten Anti-MAHA Physician Strike

“A paradoxical pattern has been suggested in the literature on doctors' strikes: when health workers go on strike, mortality stays level or decreases."

Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Under ‘Special Watch’ in Custody: Sheriff’s Office

Suspected assassin of Charlie Kirk is on “special watch” in custody and held separately, the Utah Sheriff’s Office spokesperson confirmed.

Employees Fired, Suspended for Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Death

Multiple U.S. companies warn employees they could lose their jobs if they post comments celebrating or mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Turning Point USA Announces Memorial Service for Slain Founder Charlie Kirk

The conservative political nonprofit Turning Point USA has announced a Sept. 21. memorial service for its late founder, Charlie Kirk.

Latin American Leaders Pay Tribute to Charlie Kirk

Latin American leaders mourned the passing of Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated as he spoke to a crowd of students at Utah Valley University.

Trump Signs Memo Targeting Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising

President Trump signed a memo to ensure drug ads give fair, balanced, and complete information to protect and inform American consumers.

Trump Runs out of Patience With China, Sharpens His Words

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks targeting China and its allies mark a noticeable shift in tone.

Trump Signs Order Renaming Department of Defense as Department of War

President Donald Trump on Sept. 5 signed an executive order renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Countries That Unlawfully Detain Americans

President Trump signed an EO on targeting the unlawful detention of American citizens around the world and to facilitate the release of hostages.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

MAGA Business Central