Explanation: The decision Roe v. Wade of the Supreme Court relied on women’s right to privacy

May 3 (Reuters) – A leaked initial draft majority opinion suggests the US Supreme Court will vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion nationwide, Politico reported Monday.

Reuters was unable to confirm the authenticity of the draft. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment. read more

A woman’s right to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy was protected nationally in 1973, following the landmark 7-2 Supreme Court ruling. here in Roe vs. Wade.

Plaintiff Jane Roe, later identified as Norma McCorvey, was a single pregnant woman who could not have an abortion under Texas law, where it was illegal unless it saved the mother’s life.

Roe’s lawyers said she couldn’t travel out of state to get an abortion, arguing the law was too vague and infringed on her constitutional rights.

“Pregnancy often strikes the same woman more than once, and in the general population, if the man is to survive, he will always be with us,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, a Republican presidential nominee. Richard Nixon, in the broad majority opinion detailing attitudes on abortion from the time of the Persian empire.

The Texas law infringed on women’s right to privacy, was too broad and violated the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the decision said.

“This right to privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It is clear the harm that the State would impose on the pregnant woman by completely denying her this choice.

“Specific and direct medically diagnosable harm may be involved even in the early stages of pregnancy. Motherhood, or additional offspring, may force a woman into a harrowing life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health can be affected by childcare. There is also the distress, for everyone involved, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family that is no longer capable, psychologically or otherwise, to take care of him.

“In other cases, such as this one, the additional difficulties and ongoing stigma of single motherhood may be involved. These are all factors that the woman and her responsible physician will necessarily consider in consultation.”

Five Republican-nominated justices were in the majority. The court ruled that the state could regulate the procedure during the second trimester and even ban it in most circumstances in the third.

“We do not agree that by adopting a theory of life, Texas can nullify the rights of pregnant women that are at stake,” Blackmun wrote.

“We reiterate, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of pregnant women, whether they are a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has another important and legitimate interest. in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct.”

Democratic-appointed Justices Byron White and Republican nominee William Rehnquist, later Chief Justice of the US, dissented.

The decision sparked a firestorm among social and judicial conservatives, who have long sought to undermine or nullify it.

Information from Makini Brice; edited by Neil Fullick

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.