The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade

The interests of the mother and the fetus are opposed.On which side should the State throw its weight?The issue is volatile; and it is resolved by the moral code which an individual has.'In Roe v. Wade 2 decided January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court-Justice Blackmun speaking for everyone but Justices White and Rehnquist 3 -held unconstitutional Texas's (and virtually every other state's 4 ) criminal abortion statute.The broad outlines of its argument are not difficult to make out:1.The right to privacy, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.r2. This right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.\"43.This right to an abortion is \"fundamental\" and can therefore be regulated only on the basis of a \"compelling\" state interest."4. The state does have two "important and legitimate" interests here, 8 the first in protecting maternal health, the second in protecting the life (or potential life 9 ) of the fetus. 10But neither can be counted \"compelling\" throughout the entire pregnancy: Each matures with the unborn child.These interests are separate and distinct.Each grows in substan-