Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists… (1986)

I should think it obvious that the State's interest in the protection of an embryo--even if that interest is defined as "protecting those who will be citizens," ibid.--increases progressively and dramatically as the organism's capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive, and to react to its surroundings increases day by day. The development of a fetus--and pregnancy itself--are not static conditions, and the assertion that the government's interest is static simply ignores this reality.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists… (1986)

There may, of course, be a significant difference in the strength of the countervailing state interest, but I fail to see how a decision on childbearing becomes less important the day after conception than the day before. Indeed, if one decision is more "fundamental" to the individual's freedom than the other, surely it is the postconception decision that is the more serious. Thus, it is difficult for me to understand how Justice White reaches the conclusion that restraints upon this aspect of a woman's liberty do not "call into play anything more than the most minimal judicial scrutiny."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists… (1986)

The majority remains free to preach the evils of birth control and abortion and to persuade others to make correct decisions while the individual faced with the reality of a difficult choice having serious and personal consequences of major importance to her own future--perhaps to the salvation of her own immortal soul--remains free to seek and to obtain sympathetic guidance from those who share her own value preferences.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature