His Honor mentions the fact that "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." He provides for us the grounds upon which the court has traditionally recognized the right to privacy, but the fact remains- the right to privacy is an implied right, not an explicit one.
There are three reasons that explain why, historically, abortion laws have been enacted. These are shown to be: to discourage illicit sexual conduct, to address concerns about the safety of the medical procedure, and to address the State's interest in the protection of prenatal life. While the first argument is seldom taken seriously anymore, and the second argument is no longer really an issue given the improvements made by the medical community, the third reason becomes of particular interest in contemporary times. Justice Blackmun notes, with regard to this argument, that there is a lack of history of states enacting legislation aimed at the protection of prenatal life. The laws, it is argued, are primarily written with the protection of the woman in mind. Given the supposed weakness of these three reasons, the court felt that the implied right to privacy of the woman would, in some cases, supercede any laws forbidding her an abortion based thereon. The Court does, however, acknowledge that as a pregnancy develops the reasoning for the protection of the potential life by the State does become increasingly compelling. Given the inability of anyone of a position of expertise to determine the beginning point of life, the Court then sets its focus upon the onset of viability (the point at which the fetus could survive outside the womb with some help) as the guideline in which the State's interest become compelling. Justice Blackmun states that in reference to the resolution of when life begins, "when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary … is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
It is this particular statement which, I believe, provides us with the legal grounds for a re-examination of Roe vs. Wade. Justice Blackmun is a fair and educated man. Given the facts at the time, he and the Court came to the only decision they felt that they constitutionally could. However, as was with the case of the argument based on the dangers of abortion procedures, the situation has changed. The medical and scientific community has agreed that the point at which life begins is at the very point of conception. With this determination, should not then the concessions alluded to with regard to the State's interest in protecting a potential life at the onset of viability (heretofore, the only court recognized point of potential life) be retroactive to the now established true beginning of life? I do not believe that the Court would ever place an implied right to privacy in precedence over the State's obligation to protect the life of another.
It is my heartfelt belief that the Supreme Court, given all of the relevant facts and statistics and recognizant that abortion in America has become just another means of birth control, would arrive at a different conclusion were they to reexamine their previous decision. I believe it is time for them to step up to the challenge and do what is right; overturn Roe vs. Wade
