Many critics of the Roe v Wade resolution dispute that the Supreme Court's decision was mistaken because, as said by Robert Bork, "the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not to be found in the Constitution". Consequently, they say the court did not translate the Constitution at all in making their influential mark on the citizens of the United States. Ronald Dworkin, on the other hand holds a different perspective of this situation. He tends to believe that although the technical terminology of abortion was not stated in the Constitution, the simple right of privacy, which in his mentality, deals with termination of a pregnancy.
Some critics of the decision regarding Roe v Wade feel that the court is, in a sense, legalizing murder. Most refined critics on the other hand believe that the Court's decision on this issue was indeed wrong, but for different reasons. Like Bork, many feel that the Court had no right to interpret the binding piece of our country, the Constitution. Since the word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, right-wing lawyer Bork states " Unfortunately, in the entire opinion there is not one line of explanation, not one sentence that qualifies as a legal argument ". (pg, 103, Bork) He continues to say " It is unlikely that it ever will, because the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not found in the Constitution ". (Pg, 103, Bork)
Dworkin, distinguished author of the book titled Life's Dominion, feels differently than the critics described above. He deems that the court does in fact have the right to interpret the Constitution. Dworkin agrees with Justice Blackmun's opinion in this great philosophical issue. Blackmun feels that " a pregnant woman has a specific constitutional right to privacy in matters of procreation, and that this general right includes a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105, Blackmun)
In 1965, another case regarding the right of privacy made a lasting and influential mark as well. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court decided that a state does not have the right to prohibit the sale of contraceptives. Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court states that " If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child ". (pg. 106, Brennan) According to this statement and Dworkin, " the Court therefore cannot logically hold that a woman's right to control her role in procreation ends with fertilization without permitting states to outlaw these contraceptives ". (pg. 107, Dworkin) This is another example of Dworkin's belief.
Suppose that we decide that there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy in matters of reproduction. Would this be enough to determine whether states can ban abortions? This is another aspect of the ongoing controversy of abortion as a whole. One side of this argument can dispute that since abortion is in fact a matter of reproduction, they as citizens are protected to their privacy. Therefore, this would not be enough to prove to the Court that states can prohibit abortions. According to this belief, abortions are a private issue and should have nothing dealing with the government. As stated earlier a quote from Brennan, if this is in fact a private issue, the Court does not have a right to interfere with the bearing or begetting of a child.
Contrary to this opinion, some also feel that although abortions are considered a reproductive matter, the government would be intruding and disrupting on the intrinsic rights of the human. They feel that although the rights the women have, single or married, to their private reproductive issues, the inborn rights of the child are being intruded upon. Consequently, they feel that the states do in fact have the right to ban abortions.
Even though abortion is a protected right under the constitution, the states still can debate whether they have the right to ban it. According to the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states are obliged to act rationally whenever it restricts liberty in any form. This is basically saying that states