Can I have some information about the Roe vs. Wade court case, please???

Question

Im having some trouble understanding the info on all of the sites that I looked at and I dont have immediate access to an encyclopedia... Wikipedia sucks butt.... thank you

I tried Google and Wikipedia and I couldnt really understand most of it, Anyway, my teacher said she didnt want us to use wikipedia at all... I need to know simple details like the date, who was the justice, how long the trial was, not the basic concept, Im doing a report on it so I kinda already know the basics... its just the little details Im having trouble finding... does anyone know of any reliable sources??

Answer 1

It gave a woman the choice on whether or not to abort her baby.

Answer 2

Roe v. Wade was a US Supreme Court case that recognized the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy during the first two trimesters. It came up from the Texas circuit, where a woman challenged the constitutionality of a TX statute, which criminalized abortion. It was merged with a case from GA, which evaluated the constitutionality of a similar statute. Notably, the Roe is not the petitioner's name. This is a pseudonym, used to protect her confidentiality, as she became pregnant allegedly as a result of a rape. Also, the Supreme court almost dismissed the case under its "mootness" doctrine, which requires the case or controversy before the court to be real at the time the court renders its decision. And since Roe's baby had already been born, the question of mootness arose, but Blackmun (who wrote the opinion) said that if mootness were applied to abortion cases, the SC would never be able to hear an abortion case for the reason that it only takes 9 mos to have a baby, whereas it takes 3-5 years (generally) for a case to percolate up to the high Court. for further details, look in books of legal history of your library.

Answer 3

What kind of information. Its pretty simple, this lady didnt want to have to face the consequences of her actions and her lawyers were able to get the abortion repealed.

Answer 4

It was the single worst decision the Supreme Court ever rendered.

Answer 5

Try google and wiki does not suck, I am sure there are several sights within both that can answer your questions.

Answer 6

That's pretty simple, here ya go.

410 U.S. 113, *; 93 S. Ct. 705, **;
35 L. Ed. 2d 147, ***; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159


ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY

No. 70-18

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159


December 13, 1971, Argued
January 22, 1973, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11306 (N.D. Tex., 1970)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed a judgment from a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which denied her motion for an injunction against enforcement of state anti-abortion laws, Tex. Penal Code arts. 1191-1194, 1196. Defendant state sought review of that portion of the judgment that declared that the laws violated plaintiff's right to privacy as provided in U.S. Const. amends. IX, XIV.
OVERVIEW: The Court affirmed the judgment and held that abortion was within the scope of the concept of personal liberty guaranteed to plaintiff by U.S. Const. amend. XIV, but recognized that the state had a compelling interest in both the safety of the mother and the welfare of the fetus. The Court held that abortion was a fundamental right, guaranteed not by U.S. Const. amend. IX, but by the Due Process Clause of amend. XIV. This right was not absolute, however, and it was subject to regulation by narrowly drawn legislation aimed at vindicating legitimate, compelling state interests. Drawing on the social, medical, and legal history of abortion, the Court found two compelling state interests that supported regulation: protection of the health of the mother and the potentiality of human life. The Court held that the former became compelling, and was thus grounds for regulation, after the first trimester of pregnancy, beyond which the state could regulate the abortion procedure to preserve and protect maternal health. The Court held that the latter became compelling at viability, after which a state could proscribe abortion except to preserve the life or health of the mother.

OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment that denied plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and declared that the state's anti-abortion statutes violated plaintiff's personal liberty right. The Court held that abortion was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, but held that maternal health and the potentiality of human life were compelling interests that the state could protect through legislation narrowly tailored to those ends.

COUNSEL: Sarah Weddington reargued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Roy Lucas, Fred Bruner, Roy L. Merrill, Jr., and Norman Dorsen.

Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellee on the reargument. Jay Floyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellee on the original argument. With them on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Henry Wade, and John B. Tolle. *



* Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, Robert K. Killian, Attorney General of Connecticut, Ed W. Hancock, Attorney General of Kentucky, Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General of Utah; by Joseph P. Witherspoon, Jr., for the Association of Texas Diocesan Attorneys; by Charles E. Rice for Americans United for Life; by Eugene J. McMahon for Women for the Unborn et al.; by Carol Ryan for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.; by Dennis J. Horan, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Thomas M. Crisham, and Dolores V. Horan for Certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; by Harriet F. Pilpel, Nancy F. Wechsler, and Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.; by Alan F. Charles for the National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor et al.; by Marttie L. Thompson for State Communities Aid Assn.; by Alfred L. Scanlan, Martin J. Flynn, and Robert M. Byrn for the National Right to Life Committee; by Helen L. Buttenwieser for the American Ethical Union et al.; by Norma G. Zarky for the American Association of University Women et al.; by Nancy Stearns for New Women Lawyers et al.; by the California Committee to Legalize Abortion et al.; and by Robert E. Dunne for Robert L. Sassone.

JUDGES: Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, JJ., joined. Burger, C. J., post, p. 207, Douglas, J., post, p. 209, and Stewart, J., post, p. 167, filed concurring opinions. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 221. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 171.

Answer 7

Here is an overview.