Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally (Catholic) Term Paper

Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally (Catholic) - Term Paper Example Wade’s constitutionality with reference to the written constitution. There is so much false information regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on this case. To say that the decision of the Supreme Court was legally and constitutionally correct means that the decision should base on principles enshrined in the constitution of the United States, on precedents in constitutional law and on rights, which the constitution purposely created to secure and protect. Abortion has been generally a debated issue for many years. Abortion gets opposition especially by the church and activists’ arguing that abortion is murder, and therefore, women should not have the right to an abortion. On this case, the Supreme Court gave Roe the right to an abortion saying that it was her constitutional right not to bear the child of a rapist. The court emphasized that they were not deciding when human life starts. They ruled that an unborn child is not a human being within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore, not entitled to have rights to life, liberty, and property. The court effectively argued that unborn children are not living human beings and therefore, they are not entitled to the Fourteenth amendment rights1. Historical evidence of abortion does not support a woman’s right to an abortion. Early feminists opposed abortion, as the medical procedure was not safe for women, endangering their health and life. By 1965, all the fifty states had banned abortion, with some exceptions, which were different depending on the state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the unborn child was deformed. These words gave women the right to an abortion. Groups such as the National Abortion Rights League struggled to liberalize anti-abortion laws. The history of abortion is much familiar to the Roe v. Wade case as it made most existing state abortion laws unconstitutional. The Court did not interpret in