In the United States, reproductive rights continue to be an extremely controversial issue as heated debates over abortion and contraceptives are on the rise. With regards to current events including the 2016 presidential election and the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court’s role of reproductive rights has been examined closely. Federal and state legislature have honed in on women’s right to abortion through compelling state interests to protect women’s health. Additionally, access of contraceptives and the role of health care are issues that the Court has decided on. Over the years, the Court’s opinions on these issues have evolved even though reproductive rights are still very controversial. To better understand …show more content…
Justice Blackmun, in the majority opinion, discusses the Court’s trimester analysis that was important to the decision. The rationale is that in the first trimester women are free to choose to have an abortion, but in the second trimester, the fetus becomes more viable and the state’s compelling interest increases. The third trimester has the strongest compelling state interest because of the potential for human life. In each trimester, the state must have the woman’s health in best interest and as the fetus becomes more viable, the state can become more concerned with the fetus, as well. Blackmun explicitly states that due to medical advances, the Texas law was no longer valid because the state’s interest was originally to “protect the woman’s health” rather than risking the woman’s life over and unsafe …show more content…
Connecticut. The Court argues that regardless of where the right to privacy is found in the Constitution, it is broad enough to allow a woman to decide whether or not she is going to terminate her pregnancy. The Court listed several factors that impact a woman’s right to choose including mental and physical health, financial factors, and family life. It can be inferred from the majority opinion that the right to privacy encompasses the compelling state interest. Allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion, or not, allows the woman’s best interest to be highly prioritized. The dissenting opinion of the case is that the compelling state interest test was already decided as a legal matter and its standing was violated “under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Holmes also dismisses the trimester analysis because it:
“outlines the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth