Whether the federal Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her own pregnancy has set off a fierce debate between pro-choice and pro-life groups.  Prior to the 1960s, the criminal laws of most states prohibited abortion at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to save the mother's life. Such laws were passed during the mid-to-late 19th century because the absence of antiseptic practices and antibiotics made abortion very hazardous. But during the 1960s, the women's rights movement began to take effect and several states started to relax their regulations on abortions. Some states made exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape. Alaska, California, New York, and Washington legalized abortions during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.  Cases were also brought to the state and federal courts, challenging the constitutionality of laws prohibiting abortion. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that "the right to privacy is broad enough to protect a woman's decision to terminate her own pregnancy."  The majority recognized that government's denial of such a choice would be detrimental to the right of a woman to control her body.  It emphasized that "specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy can be involved. Maternity or offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life or future. Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress...associated with the unwanted child and the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. The additional difficulties, and the continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may [further be] involved." All of these factors, concluded the Court, affect the woman in such a profound way that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is hers during the first and second trimesters of gestation.  But the justices also held that by the 24th week the fetus is viable (capable of surviving outside the womb) and states may ban abortion because of the compelling interest in protecting potential human life, except when a termination is necessary to preserve maternal life or health.  The effect of Roe was to accord greater respect for the autonomy, independence, and dignity of women.   

Did Roe strike an appropriate balance between the right of a woman to control her own body and the right of the unborn to experience life? At what point is the state's interest in preserving the potential life of a fetus compelling enough to override the right of a woman to control the quality of her life? Is the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy unduly burdened by laws requiring 24-hour waiting periods, parental notification, father consent and viability testing when the fetus is   more than twenty weeks old.  What about laws forbidding state   employees and state funded hospitals to perform or counsel   women about abortions? With 1.5 million abortions occurring   every year and 4 abortions performed for every ten live births is   the woman's right to choose a necessary evil?  If human life   begins at the moment of conception, then how can abortion be   tolerated, even when a pregnancy is the product of incest or   rape? If Roe is reversed and abortion is made illegal, then how can society provide the kind of care needed to sustain millions of unwanted children? How can women who are distraught over being pregnant be forced by government to carry a healthy fetus to term and refrain from using back-alley or RU-486 abortion practices?