The Roe vs. Wade case (3) involved a pregnant single woman (Roe) who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman's life. A married couple (the Does) separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife's health. The Does' appeal was rejected as being too speculative.
The Supreme court found that: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here..... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy...
For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: "While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others." Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is "not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution." He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied "to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole."
Independent of the state and federal laws, physicians who perform abortions are restricted by the regulations of their state's Medical Association. They typically do not permit abortions after 20 or 21 week gestation unless the woman's health or life are seriously at risk.