ROE V WADE

­ Court looked into ancient practise, as abortion in the ancient times was practised by
the Greeks and ‘resorted to without scruple’ – as in there was nothing wrong with
abortion
⚪ However, back then it was based on the concept of a violation of the father’s
right to his offspring
⚪ In short, ancient religion did not bar abortion
⚪ They raised the Hippocratic Oath, in which abortion was not to be helped as it
is similar to killing a life
⚪ Question: why did the oath not stop abortion during Roman civilization?
■ The oath was not uncontested. Only the Pythagorean school of
philosophers opposed suicide & abortion
■ However, most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended
abortion at least when it is viable 
­ The court also referred to the common law
⚪ In CL, abortion was allowed before the foetus was detected to move in the
womb (quickening), hence it is not an offence
⚪ Quickening is based on the earlier philosophical, theological, civil & canon
law concepts on when life begins
⚪ Under Christian theology, 40 days after conception; the foetus then has a soul 
⚪ There was agreement however prior to that point, the foetus was part of the
mother’s body hence it was not homicide
⚪ CL did not regard foetus as human being, even when it has quickened – and
penalty was merely manslaughter
­ Court also referred to English statutory law
⚪ Laid down that abortion of foetus who has gone through quickening is a
capital crime
⚪ Infant Life (Preservation) Act
■ Committing abortion is a felony BUT if it is done in good faith & to
protect life of mother then it is not an offence
■ Hence, abortion here is allowed and not totally prohibited 
■ This was exemplified in Rex v Bourne
⚪ Abortion Act 1967
■ The Act permits licensed physician to perform a abortion where 2
other licensed physicians agree that the pregnancy would risk the life
of the woman or any living children in the family, OR the child if born
will suffer from abnormalities 
■ So this too allows abortion
­ Then they looked into American law
⚪ Abortion before quickening was made a crime only in 1860
⚪ In 1828, abortion is allowed
­ They then looked into how the US legislation dealt with abortion
⚪ Firstly dealt with strictly, before becoming more lenient
 ­ The judges looked into how American doctors viewed abortion
⚪ An 1859 report, deplored abortion because there was a misconception that the
foetus is not alive until after period of quickening
⚪ Besides that, the report also pointed out that there were also doctors who did
not protect foetus; careless
⚪ An 1871 report, abortion was opposed because it involves human life which is
sacred & serious & how it is unlawful to abort without concurrent opinion of
one respectable physician
⚪ In 1970, American Public Health Assoc changed their stance and launched
new standards for abortion
■ Rapid & simple abortion referral must be readily avail through state &
local public facilities
■ Counselling should be to simplify & expedite the provision of abortion
services
■ Psychiatric consultation should not be mandatory as it is only for
serious situations
■ Individuals are from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to
be the counsellors
■ Contraception & sterilization should be discussed with the abortion
patients
⚪ More requirements were added in 1971 which include, properly trained
individuals, properly set up facilities & the need to record details
­ Court in this case thus suggested that abortions in 2nd trimester can be done in hospital
as inpatient procedures; whereas those in 1st trimester who want abortion with or
without overnight stay is the “safest way to go”
­ The reason why the state controlled abortion was because it was hazardous for women
(a paternalistic approach)
⚪ The court responded to this with saying that abortion back then was unsafe but
modern medical techniques have changed this
­ Court felt that state has a legitimate interest in ensuring abortion is carried out safely
­ The court also looked at the fact that high mortality rate at illegal abortion centres
further prove the point that the state must control abortion processes
­ This case therefore gave right to the state to control abortion (in terms of registration
of clinics, doctors etc) 
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
­ The court also looked into issue of right to privacy
­ In M’sia, the tort of invasion of privacy is not recognized 
­ But in Roe v Wade,