The Debate over Roe V. Wade

The Debate Over Roe v. Wade

Many critics of the Roe v Wade resolution dispute that the Supreme

Court's decision was mistaken because, as said by Robert Bork, "the right

to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not to be found in the

Constitution". Consequently, they say the court did not translate the

Constitution at all in making their influential mark on the citizens of the

United States. Ronald Dworkin, on the other hand holds a different

perspective of this situation. He tends to believe that although the

technical terminology of abortion was not stated in the Constitution, the

simple right of privacy, which in his mentality, deals with termination of

a pregnancy.

Some critics of the decision regarding Roe v Wade feel that the

court is, in a sense, legalizing murder. Most refined critics on the other

hand believe that the Court's decision on this issue was indeed wrong, but

for different reasons. Like Bork, many feel that the Court had no right to

interpret the binding piece of our country, the Constitution. Since the

word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, right-wing lawyer Bork

states " Unfortunately, in the entire opinion there is not one line of

explanation, not one sentence that qualifies as a legal argument ". (pg,

103, Bork) He continues to say " It is unlikely that it ever will,

because the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not found in the

Constitution ". (Pg, 103, Bork)

Dworkin, distinguished author of the book titled Life's Dominion,

feels differently than the critics described above. He deems that the

court does in fact have the right to interpret the Constitution. Dworkin

agrees with Justice Blackmun's opinion in this great philosophical issue.

Blackmun feels that " a pregnant woman has a specific constitutional right

to privacy in matters of procreation, and that this general right includes

a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105,

Blackmun)

In 1965, another case regarding the right of privacy made a lasting

and influential mark as well. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court decided

that a state does not have the right to prohibit the sale of contraceptives.

Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court states that " If the right of

privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or

single, to be free from government intrusion into matters so fundamentally

affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child ". (pg.

106, Brennan) According to this statement and Dworkin, " the Court

therefore cannot logically hold that a woman's right to control her role in

procreation ends with fertilization without permitting states to outlaw

these contraceptives ". (pg. 107, Dworkin) This is another example of