Running head: ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT 1

Abortion and the First Amendment

Paige Moore

North Carolina A&T State University

Dr. Gary C. Guffey

Communication Law and Ethics

JOMC 393-02
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
2

Abstract

Abortion is such a raw, sensitive topic yet taboo to so many women both young and old.

People treat it often enough as such as “black & white” topic, yet it truly has deeper layers than

surface. When you are a “consenting adult” is when it is viewed as ethically ok to have sexual

intercourse. If a woman is to become pregnant (unwillingly and/or willingly), she has rights

under the United States Constitution that protects her "privacy rights" as it regards to medical

and health care. Nonetheless, depending on the state will determine if and/or how she can

proceed with the procedure and/or that particular state(s) is allowed to have clinics for this

procedure. Throughout this paper, it is to be understood and shed light that rights women have to

pertain to their health as it regards to pregnancy, yet some clinics will not perform this procedure

due to their right to practice The First Amendment (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly,

and petition). Furthermore, it shall shed light on persons who believe otherwise and how there is

life from gestation onward. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids bad-tempered

searches as well as seizures and necessitates any search permit to be judicially certified and

reinforced by probable cause). Additionally, this paper sheds light on Supreme Court Case Roe

v. Wade and the triumphs she encountered along the way. In conjunction with Norma Corvey

and her encounter with Texas abortion laws. The Amendment only guards against hunts and

seizures lead by the regime or under governmental directives. Regardless of what the law deems

as "right" or "ok"; women should always have to their right of privacy to their bodies, as well be

able to make the right choice for her own body and life.
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
3

Abortion and the First Amendment

The Highest Court (Supreme) interprets abortion as a "privacy right" as well as a "liberty

claim" Abortion is sheltered by the 14th Revision, informed by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th

Amendments. The right of confidentiality concerning abortion is however not precisely stated in

the constitution though in variable circumstances the Court Justices and fairness have created at

least the backgrounds of that right in the 1st, 2 nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th revisions, besides, the idea of

liberty is assured by the fourteenth revision (Canady Hoyt, 2004). The 4th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution forbids bad-tempered searches as well as seizures and necessitates any search

permit to be judicially certified and reinforced by probable cause. It is thus part of the Bill of

Rights (Jones, 1993). The Amendment only guards against hunts and seizures lead by the regime

or under governmental directives. Investigation and the actions taken by strictly private

individuals, such as reserved investigators, apprehensive spouses, or inquisitive neighbors, are

not governed nor supported by the Fourth Amendment. The entire theory of the right of

confidentiality and the debate surrounding it started from the verdict in the U.S. Highest Court

Case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. 

In 1970 Norma Mc Corvey confronted the Texas abortion laws that made it an offense to

secure an abortion unless the abortion is pathologically advised for the reason of saving the life

of the mother. The claimant pursued a declaratory verdict that the Texas immoral abortion

statues were unlawful and an order limiting the offender from imposing the statutes (Canady
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
4

Hoyt, 2004). The national abortion rules were said to be an abuse of both the 1st and 4th

amendments. The 1st amendment applied to the rules since they were made with the creation of

religion. The 1st revision gives individuals the freedom to life, freedom, as well as the hunt for

happiness. The 4th amendment protects people from irrational pursuits and confiscations. A row

was set forward by a Justice that if the public was to obstruct a lady who sought to procure an

abortion, that it was an irrational seizure against her discretion (Jones, 1993).

The court case of Roe vs. Wade was decided upon none more so than the fourteenth

amendment. In the Roe vs. Wade court case the decisions involved with the court had to

acknowledge the past case of Griswold vs. Connecticut because it applied just the same as

Norma McCorvey's current case does (Ivers, 2013). The same principles and values that we are

protected under due to the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment were once again

being arbitrarily infringed upon and the court couldn't acknowledge these rights in one case and

dismiss them in another (Canady Hoyt, 2004). Because of this technicality, Norma McCorvey

won the case and abortion was legalized. Future cases tried to challenge the Roe vs. Wade

decision but to no avail.

The one major case that was thought for sure to override the Roe vs. Wade was

Deliberate Parenthood vs. Casey. In 1982, Pennsylvania accented the Abortion Control Act, that

needed women to give "conversant consent" before abortions can be done and forced a 24-hour

waiting time upon women looking for abortions, through which time the females would be given

information concerning abortions, the Act also expected that all Pennsylvania abortion hospitals

report to the state. Prearranged Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania trailed a complaint

counter to the state, disagreeing that the Abortion Control Act debased the Supreme Court's

ruling in Roe v. Wade. The Highest Court decided to take the case for evaluation. After a very
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
5

long and brutally studied case that almost overruled Roe vs. Wade a verdict was made and Roe

vs. Wade was upheld and we still follow the abortion laws from this major case up to this very

day.  A lot of freedom has therefore been given to women seeking to procure abortions,

especially by the Amendments. There are many persons who care about this matter, now-a-days

there is a certain and heavily enforced protocol when approached to perform this procedure.

Overall, these steps are to be taken to ensure lives are highly protected even when procuring

allowed abortions.

In the face of controversies surrounding abortion, and after the amendments, individuals

have the right to express themselves without government interference. A person cannot be held

liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long

as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements (Ivers, 2013). It is also stated

that they have the right to petition if it is a peaceful petition. Now Susan and the other two

protestors have violated these rights as they had been very loud in their protesting and started to

become violent in their protest by throwing things and ganging up on their target. The protestors

were probably trying to get their point across but the way that they went about it wasn’t the right

way. They could have gone about their protest in a more peaceful way. And not the way they

went with throwing cups of blood and shouting out threats to anyone who came near the Planned

Parenthood office ("First Amendment," n.d.). I think their appeal will not go through since they

didn't have any type of peaceful protest and became violent towards the victim.

Now with Vicky's case, she is being charged with child endangerment. The statue for

Child Endangerment reads as follows: "No person, who is the parent, guardian, and custodian,

person having custody or control of a child under eighteen years of age, shall create a substantial

risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support (Ivers,
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
6

2013). Vicky had decided that she would attempt to abort her baby herself consuming massive

amounts of alcohol because she needed her priest consent first for a legal abortion. If we look to

the Born Alive rule Vicky can’t be convicted of child endangerment since her child isn’t born yet

and is not considered a viable fetus. In a similar case, State v. Gray, a mother gave birth to a

daughter who had to be hospitalized because of cocaine withdrawal symptoms. The mother’s

blood had tested positive for cocaine and she was charged with child endangerment.

Vicky's case and the state v. gray case are pretty much the same except Vicky is still

pregnant. I would overturn the conviction because just like in State v. Gray the child had not

been born yet when the mother was using the substance. Since Vicky has not given birth yet so

we cannot charge her with child endangerment as she is only 9 weeks along. She is still pregnant

and wants an abortion but due to her religion, she cannot have one unless she has permission

from her priest. If it was not for Vicky being a catholic woman and her having to get written

consent that from her priest she wouldn't have drunk so much alcohol. If that statute that says

that "any woman who identifies as catholic must receive a consent form from her priest" didn't

exist she wouldn't have decided to do what she did ("First Amendment," n.d.). Due to her

religion, her liberty is at stake. Since her religion won't allow her to abort her child without the

consent of her priest the only other thing she can do is give her child up for adoption or asked her

priest to sign his consent for her abortion.

In conclusion, it is right to infer that abortion has indeed attracted a lot of controversies

over the years. However, with different amendments made to the American constitution, the

overall understanding of the issue has been changed with a doctor's advice on abortion given

priority especially when an individual's life is in danger. Care should nevertheless be taken to

ensure that illegal abortions are prevented as far as possible. When a mother's life is indeed in
ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
7

danger and only abortion to save such life, it becomes legal for such abortions to be procured.

More Amendments and constructive discussions should however be taken to ensure a strong and

constructive conclusion is made on the debate. Doctors and other medical experts consequently

have a huge responsibility to play in the debate. Lastly, all stakeholders should be given an active

role to play on the issues.

ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
8

References

Canady Hoyt (2004) Ideas from Declaration of Independence. News Sentinel Retrieved from

http:// www.Proquest.com

First Amendment. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information

Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional Law: An Introduction. San Diego, CA. Bridgepoint Education

Retrieved from Ashford.edu

Jones, C. (1993). Auditing criminal justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 33(2), 187-202.

ABORTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
9