2008 Woodie Awards
Roe vs. Wade under threat after 35 years
Megan Spivey
Issue date: 2/1/08 Section: World
Jan. 22 marked the 35th anniversary of one of, if not the most controversial decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade.
This groundbreaking case gave women the right to choose an abortion without restriction in early months of pregnancy, and with restrictions in later months. The Supreme Court made their decision based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the right of privacy against state action.
"Coming from a generation where we were born with the right, and having had it all our lives, it feels strange that there is now a possibility of losing it," said Elizabeth Tyson, co-president of Guilford's VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood) organization. "It is more than "strange" to imagine such a long standing part of our legislation being eradicated, though that may be the case.
"I think that with the recent Supreme Court appointments, more people have expressed opposition," said Kathryn Schmidt, assistant professor of sociology and anthropology. "I think it continues to be under threat."
In April 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a complete ban on an abortion procedure, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, for the first time. Less than a week later, North Dakota passed a ban that would make abortion illegal except in cases that are a threat to the mother's life or are the product of rape or incest. Since then, several other states have tried to make abortion illegal, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.
When asked what effect such bans might have, Schmidt said, "They are challenges to Roe vs. Wade that make the Supreme Court consider another ruling. Instead of letting the decision rest, they keep the issue open."
These cases are irrelevant unless Roe vs. Wade is overturned, which looks more likely than it did before Sandra Day O'Connor, advocate of women's rights, stepped down from the Supreme Court and President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
This groundbreaking case gave women the right to choose an abortion without restriction in early months of pregnancy, and with restrictions in later months. The Supreme Court made their decision based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the right of privacy against state action.
"Coming from a generation where we were born with the right, and having had it all our lives, it feels strange that there is now a possibility of losing it," said Elizabeth Tyson, co-president of Guilford's VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood) organization. "It is more than "strange" to imagine such a long standing part of our legislation being eradicated, though that may be the case.
"I think that with the recent Supreme Court appointments, more people have expressed opposition," said Kathryn Schmidt, assistant professor of sociology and anthropology. "I think it continues to be under threat."
In April 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a complete ban on an abortion procedure, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, for the first time. Less than a week later, North Dakota passed a ban that would make abortion illegal except in cases that are a threat to the mother's life or are the product of rape or incest. Since then, several other states have tried to make abortion illegal, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.
When asked what effect such bans might have, Schmidt said, "They are challenges to Roe vs. Wade that make the Supreme Court consider another ruling. Instead of letting the decision rest, they keep the issue open."
These cases are irrelevant unless Roe vs. Wade is overturned, which looks more likely than it did before Sandra Day O'Connor, advocate of women's rights, stepped down from the Supreme Court and President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Be the first to comment on this story