Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision

More of this Feature • Preface • I-II • III-IV • V-VI • VII-VIII • IX-X • XI-XII: Summary and Conclusion • Footnotes • Concurring: Stewart • Dissenting: Rehnquist • Concurring: Burger • Concurring: Douglas • Dissenting: White

Join the Discussion Discuss the history of abortion in America or the world on the Women's History Forum

Related Resources • History of Abortion in America • More Abortion History Articles and Resources

From Other Guides • Reproductive Rights and Issues

Elsewhere on the Web • CNN: 1998 Roe v. Wade Special Report

Continued from Page 10

Post: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring^*

I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of pregnant women, using [410 U.S. 208] the term health in its broadest medical context. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1971). I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.

In oral argument, counsel for the State of Texas informed the Court that early abortion procedures were routinely permitted in certain exceptional cases, such as nonconsensual pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. In the face of a rigid and narrow statute, such as that of Texas, no one in these circumstances should be placed in a posture of dependence on a prosecutorial policy or prosecutorial discretion. Of course, States must have broad power, within the limits indicated in the opinions, to regulate the subject of abortions, but where the consequences of state intervention are so severe, uncertainty must be avoided as much as possible. For my part, I would be inclined to allow a State to require the certification of two physicians to support an abortion, but the Court holds otherwise. I do not believe that such a procedure is unduly burdensome, as are the complex steps of the Georgia statute, which require as many as six doctors and the use of a hospital certified by the JCAH.

I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand. [410 U.S. 209]

FOOTNOTE:

* [This opinion applies also to No. 718, Roe v. Wade, ante p. 113.]

Next page > Opinion: Justice Blackmun > Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13