The first thing to consider in whether or not …show more content…
In Roe v. Wade, Roe alleges that she is single and pregnant; that she wishes to terminate her pregnancy under safe procedures; that she is unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life does not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy. She claims that the Texas statutes is unconstitutional and that they truncate her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Not allowing a woman to abort is in violation of the fourteenth amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy (Pp. 147-164.) Roe additionally recognized "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” In the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, legislatures have promised only that at "twenty weeks after fertilization there is substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain," not that there is medical certainty that fetal pain at twenty weeks exists. (NEB. REV. STAT § 28-3,104) Essentially, what this has done is pit a judicially recognized right (a woman's right to an abortion) against an asserted, judicially unrecognized compelling state interest that directly contradicts the constitutionally protected right, on a basis (fetal pain) that does not have concrete medical