8/7/2019 Roe Vs

1/2

Roe Vs. wade!A pregnant single women brought a class action challenging theconstitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribeprocuring or attempting an abortion except on a medical advise for the

purpose of saving the mothers life. A licensed physician, who had tostate abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted tointervene. A childless married couple, the wife not being pregnant,separately attacking the laws basing alleged injury on the futurepossibilities on contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unprepared ness forparenthood, and impairment of wifes health. A three-judge districtcourt, which consolidated the actions, held that roe and hall ford andmember of their classes had standing to sue and presented justiciablecontroversies. Ruling that declaratory though not injunctive relief waswarranted the court declared the abortion statues void as vague andover broadly infringing those plaintiffs ninth and fourteenth

amendment rights. The court ruled the does compliment notjusticiable. Appellants directly appealed to this court on the injunctiverulings, the appellee cross-appealed from the district courts grant ofdeclaratory relief to roe and hall ford.

HELD:1. While 28 U.S.C 1253 authorizes no direct repeal to

this court from the grant or denial of declaredly

relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case

is properly before the court on appeal from specific

denial or injunctive relief and the arguments as toboth injunctive and declaratory relief and necessarily

identical.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the does and hall ford do

not.

(a) Contrary to appelles contention, the natural

termination of roes pregnancy did not moot her

suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is

capable of repetition yet envading review is

an exception to the unusual federal rule that

an actual controversy must exist at review

stages and not simply when the action isinitiated.

(b) The district court correctly refused

injunctive, but erred to hall ford who alleged

no federally protected right not assertable as

a defense against the good faith state

prosecutions pending against him Samuels v.

Mack ell.

8/7/2019 Roe Vs

2/2

(c) The does complaint based as it is on

contingencies anyone or more of which may not

occur is to speculative to present an actual

case or controversy.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here

that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure

on the mothers behalf without regard to the stage of her

pregnancy and others interests involved violate due to

process clause of the fourteenth ademendment witch protects

against state action the right to privacy including a

womans qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.