The Voice of the Law: the Judiciary - Project - Roe V. Wade

Roe v. Wade is definitely an example of judicial restraint. The very foundation of Roe v. Wade is rooted in the right to privacy under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. By its definition, judicial restraint is, “a theory of judicial interpretation which endorses the limited exercise of power by the judiciary. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the framers and the constitution. Judicial restraint requires the judge to look first to the constitution. If the meaning cannot be discerned, the judge is then permitted to look to the intent of the framers. Only when neither the constitution nor the intent clarifies an issue may a judge invoke his own understanding of the issue.” ("Judicial restraint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", 2006)

The decision to legalize abortion was and is appropriate and should not be reversed. There are circumstances beyond a woman’s control that make abortion necessary. Women who are raped, drug adicts, carry a disease, are too young to carry a fetus in their womb to term and too old to carry a fetus should all be able to choice to get a legal abortion. Prior to abortion becoming legal, women would have to go to back alley doctors and clinics to have what has been described by some as a barbaric procedure, tools that where nothing more than wire coat hangers being inserted into a woman and then trying to scrape the fetus from the uterus. Many times these procedures were succesful, however at what cost. Many women where unable to have any children after the procedure because they were left barren. Still others died on the table during the procedure. Having abortion legal and regulated by the government and medical community has made the procedure safer with less complications. Some say it is like going to the dentist