The court’s decision to grant declaratory relief to Hallford may have been the cause of the debate to overrule the case of Roe vs. Wade. The court had received a case in which Roe, a single mother, had brought a class action challenging the constitutional nature of the laws in Texas that banned abortion. According to the laws, the clear guidelines to what an abortion unrecognized by law was that which was procured or attempted on grounds other than that of medical advice from the doctor for the purpose of saving a life. Another party, the Does, a childless couple joined the fight against the abortion laws on the grounds of issues such as contraceptive failure, impairment of woman's health and unprepared pregnancies that led to premature parenthood. Another party, Hallford who was a licensed physician with two abortion prosecutions against him also joined the case challenging the Texas laws. The first ruling was that Roe had the standing to sue while the other two parties did not. The declaratory relief handed to Hallford enabled him to quote the Samuels vs. Mackell case 401 U.S. 66 pp.125-127, in which he alleged no federal right viewed right by law as a
…show more content…
Casey, the Supreme Court’s decision was that the woman’s decision to have an abortion was not a liberty that was protected by the constitution as the appellant claimed. The reasons given for it not being a liberty were the facts that the constitution does not mention it and the traditions of the Americans who for a long time had permitted the practice to be legally proscribed. The Supreme Court was held by the decision it had made previously in the case of Roe vs. Wade since altering the decision, in this case, would prove an error in the eyes of the public as far as the court was concerned. The overall opinion of the court was that the issue was unconstitutional and enforced the decision fully (PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 1992)
Casey, the Supreme Court’s decision was that the woman’s decision to have an abortion was not a liberty that was protected by the constitution as the appellant claimed. The reasons given for it not being a liberty were the facts that the constitution does not mention it and the traditions of the Americans who for a long time had permitted the practice to be legally proscribed. The Supreme Court was held by the decision it had made previously in the case of Roe vs. Wade since altering the decision, in this case, would prove an error in the eyes of the public as far as the court was concerned. The overall opinion of the court was that the issue was unconstitutional and enforced the decision fully (PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 1992)