e of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this 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, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967),” Quoted by Justice William Rehnquist. "With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.” Quoted by Justice Bryon R. White. The courts action as far as Rehnquist and White are concerned goes past the courts jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade was interpreting the constitution our Four Fathers wrote, not protecting it. Rehnquist and White were worried about the fact that the fourteenth amendment had nothing mentioning abortion in it. The majority of the Court found these rights that Roe was asking for. They found the rights in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The Court decided that a woman’s body is her o...
