Actually, I just graduated from law school.. It was a long road, but it's finally over.....
As for Roe v. Wade, I love this case and could talk about it all day. It is the hallmark of the United Supreme Court, it's the Court at it's best. Now on to the case.
A woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy is encompassed within the right to privacy. The court in Roe v. Wade struck down a Texas state law that permitted a woman to only have an abortion to save the mother's life. Led by the esteemed and now deceased Justice Blackmon, the court specifically found that prior to viability , i.e. when there is no realistic possibility of maintaining the fetus's life outside the womb, the states interest in protecting the mother's health and the life of the fetus that may become a child are outweighed by the woman's right to have an abortion without imposition of "undue burdens" by the state.
The court did not specifically define what will constitute an undue burden. However, the Court did state tha a law that serves a valid purpose, i.e. a law designed not to strike at the right itself does not impose an undue burden simply because it has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or expensive to procure an abortion. Neither does a law designed to persuade a pregnant woman to choose childbirth over abortion impose an "undue burden" unless it has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in her path.
In short, Buggywhips, the court based its decision on a cost/benefit analysis. In order, for any state to impose on a woman's constitutionally protected right, the state must have a very strong interest. Since Roe v. Wade, there has been much litigation over what constitutes a valid, weighty state interest.
If you have any more questions, please ask.....I'll happily discuss this case with you, along with the progeny of abortion cases that follow.
Good Luck.
Ryan.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
