Lauren Davis

Language Arts 3
Research Paper
Abortion Rights
6th hour
 Lauren Davis

6th hour

Abortion

Does having an unborn child in your body give you the right to have an abortion?

In the cases Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, and H.L. v. Matheson, mothers and

states fight for whether abortion is right or unconstitutional. In the life vs. choice case,

Colorado believes that an abortion after 5 months of a pregnancy is killing a child who

had its own rights to life. Though for some people they say abortion is constitutional

because of the mothers own rights, but for others (the states) their answers differ.

Abortion should be constitutional and legal as long as the mother is in their 1st or 2nd

trimester, it does not go against any amendment and it follows women’s rights.

It’s said that knowing the baby is in the mothers body, then it is that women’s

property. One of the biggest abortion cases was Roe v. Wade (Texas) in 1973, where Roe

wanted an abortion but Wade said that an unborn child was superior to the right of

privacy of the mother. Roe had said that the laws violated the 14th amendment and that

wade had no right to tell her what she can and cannot do with the unborn baby in her

body. With a vote of 7-2, the court agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a

pregnancy in the first trimester. Knowing the baby is in her body, she has the rights to

“person” from the 14th amendment. With this, her rights are constitutional because of the

14th amendment of equal protection, liberty and privacy, and Roe was in her first

trimester.
 Lauren Davis

6th hour

Another big case dealing with abortion was the case of Griswold v. Connecticut,

where Griswold and a medical director gave married couples medical advice on birth

control. They both said that birth control could prevent conception, and that birth control

could make you not have a baby, (which some had thought that birth control was another

form of abortion). Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a law which

criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons

for purposes of preventing conception. Though the court concluded a 7-2 vote that stated

the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments were violated by the state of Connecticut. They said

that the people have the right to marital privacy and that they can do what they want with

the birth control, and that birth control prevents pregnancy from happening which is

considered abortion anyways.

Then last, a case of H.L. v Matheson in 1981, where Utah stated that a state may

require a doctor to inform the teenager’s parents before performing an abortion or they

can face criminal penalty. A physician advised her that an abortion would be in her best

medical interest but, because of the statute, refused to perform the abortion without first

notifying her parents. The girl believed that she could still proceed without informing her

parents, leading her to bring the case to court. She said it was unconstitutional and that it

went against any teenager who was suffering of an unwanted pregnancy but couldn’t

terminate the pregnancies because of their physicians. The court ruled 6-3 stating that
 Lauren Davis

6th hour

even though the pregnancy is in its first trimester, the teenager is still consulted under

parental figures and that the teenager is not mature enough to make an abortion decision.

So does the fetus at five months deserve the protection of the 14th amendment as a

“person?” Do women have limits to their freedom of choice when it comes time to

abortion? With this, limiting a mother’s freedom of choice, without due process, would

be unconstitutional and an invasion of the mothers privacy. Abortion should be

constitutional and legal as long as the mother isn’t in their 3rd trimester, it does not go

against any amendment and it follows women’s rights.

 Work sited

Family Planning Perspectives. Patricia Donovan. Vol 13 No 5. 1981. Guttmacher

Institute. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2134560

U.S. Supreme Court. 2010. Thomson Reuters Business.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479

H.L.V. Matheson. Justia and Oyez and form workflow.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/398/

U.S. Supreme Court. 2010. Thomson Reuters Business.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=398