|
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE
REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. *
Roe v. Wade
Court Cases Index
Roe v.
Wade Syllabus
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 1
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun
Part 2
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 3
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 4
Chief Justice Burger's concurring opinion
Justice Stewart's concurring opinion
Justice Douglas' concurring opinion
Justices White's dissenting opinion
Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion
==========Begin Footnotes==========
* [This opinion applies also to No. 70-18, Roe v. Wade, ante, p.
113.]
==========End Footnotes==========
At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring
pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are,
nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family
planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The
common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and
without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an
abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the
procedure.
The Court for the most part sustains this position: During the
period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States
values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or
potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an
abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion
not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.
With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or
history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and
announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [*222] and, with scarcely any
reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to
override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the
legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative
importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand,
against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of
raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my
view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial
review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother
more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she
carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event
join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an
order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such
as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly
differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a
constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and
doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the
most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have
devised to govern their affairs.
It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not
constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their
convenience rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims
no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of
those women [*223] whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with
United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the
District Court.
Likewise, because Georgia may constitutionally forbid abortions to
putative mothers who, like the plaintiff in this case, do not fall within the reach of '
26-1202 (a) of its criminal code, I have no occasion, and the District Court had none, to
consider the constitutionality of the procedural requirements of the Georgia statute as
applied to those pregnancies posing substantial hazards to either life or health. I would
reverse the judgment of the District Court in the Georgia case.
===============================================
Roe v. Wade
Court Cases Index
Roe v. Wade Syllabus
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 1
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun
Part 2
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 3
Court's Opinion, Justice Blackmun Part 4
Chief Justice Burger's concurring opinion
Justice Stewart's concurring opinion
Justice Douglas' concurring opinion
Justices White's dissenting opinion
Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion
|