Roe v. Wade Case Analysis Essay

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Roe v. Wade case eliminated the controversy of whether or not abortions were safe procedures for women to have. The Supreme Court divided pregnancy into three trimesters to ensure women’s safety. During the second trimester, states “can regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” In the third trimester, states can “regulate, and even proscribe abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Given that states can regulate abortions if necessary for a woman’s safety, the anti-abortionist opinion supporting women’s health was no longer required or valid to argue after Roe v. Wade because women’s health was considered. There were no articles after Roe v. Wade in the sampling examined that argued against abortion because of its dangers to women’s health. However, a report from the Los Angeles Times said,

States have joined the effort by trying to prohibit abortions without spousal or parental consent–a ruling the Supreme Court has overturned– and by trying to bar certain abortion methods as unsafe. “But the Supreme Court said no,” explained Jakes. They said that the method (saline amniocentesis) is safer than following the pregnancy through the full term would be.

Because more women began to have abortions legally after Roe v. Wade, there was a decrease in death rates because the procedure’s safety improved as “back alleyway abortions” were no longer needed. The quality and knowledge of the procedure also enhanced in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade and following years after, as it was more familiar compared to the 1930s.

In the years following the 70s’, there were significantly more opinions of anti-abortionists that discussed the moral aspects than before the 70s’. Anti-abortionists represented the argument questioning the morality of abortions in 12 of 18 articles regarding abortion after Roe v. Wade. The opinions surrounding morality dealt with the idea that abortion was murder and these opinions were often of people of the Catholic religion. For example, a New York Times article interviewed a bishop who said, “The Catholic Church in the Diocese of Albany remains unswerving in our commitment to protect the life of the defenseless unborn.” This anti-abortionist bishop focuses his attention and concern on the life of a fetus rather than the mother’s health. Fighting for the “life of the defenseless unborn” meant that he and his church believed life begins at conception and abortion was murder.

As Catholics took the form of the large anti-abortionist population concerning morality, not all anti-abortionists were Catholic and still believed that abortion was murder. While Catholic people’s arguments against abortion were often rooted in their religion, some other anti-abortionists arguments grew passionately from their angst towards the U.S. government. An article from 1990 wrote, “Will the American people continue to accept the notion that an unborn child is disposable? The crowd roared back, ‘No!’” This article reported a large protest against abortions and shared some of the opinions anti-abortionists had during this time. The crowd yelled about how abortion was murder and was morally wrong. Later in the article, a protest leader said, “We feel that it is important that we show we are still strong and still powerful. Our numbers will be impressive to Congress and the country.” The mention of “strength” and “power” shows that anti-abortionists were fighting to protect their morality argument because they felt invalidated by the U.S. government previously from Roe v. Wade and felt that they could prove to Congress that their view was valid.

An article published in 1978 shows another example of anti-abortionist opinions who felt unsettled by the government’s decision of Roe v. Wade while also arguing that abortion was murder. The Washington Post writes, “There will come a day when the Roe v. Wade decision will be classed with the Dred Scott decision as denying the civil rights by a definition that is a groundless legal fiction.” This quote comes from a short article titled “Saving the Lives of Unborn Babies” and talks heavily about the title’s topic, and towards the end, the author compared the Dred Scott decision to the Roe v. Wade decision. The Dred Scott decision concluded that enslaved people were the property of white people. The author of this quote said that the property of women’s bodies debated in the Roe v. Wade decision was becoming grouped with the severity of the property discussed in the Dred Scott decision. This quote shows anti-abortionists with the morality argument questioning the validity of the Supreme Court by calling their decision “a groundless legal fiction.”

While the angst towards the government was mainly coming from anti-abortionists with unspecified religions, people of the Catholic Church were also very unsatisfied with the Roe v. Wade decision. In 1976, an article was published to describe the views of abortion through the lens of Catholicism. Many Catholics interviewed reflected that their views supported the “abortion is murder” moral conflict while also mentioning the government. The New York Times interviewed an anti-abortionist bishop who said, “We would like to repeat for ourselves and for anyone who will listen that an unborn baby is a biological human in every way,” the bishop said. The church’s belief that abortion is murder is something all politicians will have to reckon with, he said.” This article talked a lot about the Catholic Church’s beliefs on abortions, and the words “morally wrong” were used quite often when describing them. This quote is captivating because not only does it argue that abortion is murder, but it also includes a slight jab at politicians for not validating this religious belief in law. The bishop was referencing Roe v. Wade because the Supreme Court overrode the argument that abortion is murder as the Justices stated the view as invalid.

The evidence analyzed supports the idea that there was a distinct reposition of how anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists viewed abortion before and after Roe v. Wade. The categorization of the difference in opinion before and after Roe v. Wade could be viewed as anti-abortionists arguing against mortality and then shifting more towards arguing against immorality. Before Roe v. Wade, many anti-abortionists argued against abortions simply because they seemed unsafe procedures for women. After Roe v. Wade, more anti-abortionists argued against abortions because they cared about the fetus’s life and believed it was immoral to abort the “life” opportunity. The difference between the mortality and immorality arguments could be highlighted through the lens of a feminist. The mortality argument shows compassion for mothers, while the morality argument often shames mothers who choose to decide to have an abortion. However, through analysis of the few anti-abortionists who argued against immorality before Roe v. Wade, women were shamed more than in the immorality arguments before Roe v. Wade than after. This pattern shows that the Roe v. Wade decision did not influence any increase in sexism because it was prominent before the decision. The mortality argument decreased in popularity after Roe v. Wade because it was no longer a valid argument, as abortions were no longer considered unsafe if done legally. Since anti-abortionists favored keeping abortion illegal, they no longer argued for the safety of abortions because the solution to mortality was solved. The anti-abortionist opinion then shifted to concern about the morality of abortions, and the people of the Catholic Church heavily supported this argument. The shift in opinion also highlights the polarization in all views of abortion. Before the Roe v. Wade decision, many anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists cared for women’s health regarding abortions. After the decision, the opinions on both sides of the spectrum have moved further down the line and apart, broadening the spectrum of views entirely.