ROE V. WADE(罗诉韦德案)
In 1969, a 25-year-old pregnant single woman Norma McCorvey Burger the pseudonym Jane Roe" brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. Ms McCorvey first filed the case in 1969.She was pregnant with her third child and claimed that she had been raped. But the case was rejected and she was forced to give birth. However, in 1973 her appeal made it to the US Supreme Court where she was represented by Sarah Weddingtona Dallas attorney.
1969年，25岁怀孕的单身女性诺玛·麦考维化名简·罗伊提起集体诉讼，挑战德克萨斯州刑事堕胎法的合宪性，该法律禁止堕胎或试图堕胎的行为，除非是出于挽救母亲生命的医学建议。麦考维女士在1969年第一次提起诉讼，当时她怀有第三个孩子，她声称自己被强奸了，但案件被驳回，她只好生下孩子。然而，1973年，她的上诉到了美国最高法院，由达拉斯律师萨拉·维丁托纳为她辩护。
State criminal abortion law like those involved here that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which protects against state action the right to privacy including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy Though the State cannot override that right it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the women approach to term.
州刑事堕胎法认为，除了犯罪之外，这里涉及的只有代表母亲的拯救生命的程序，而不考虑她的怀孕事实和其他利益，违反了美国宪法修正案第十四条正当程序中保护国家行为不受侵犯的条款虽然国家不能无视这项权利，但它在保护孕妇的健康和人类生命的潜力方面具有合法利益，每在妇女接近足月的不同阶段，每一项增长的利益都格外引人瞩目。
The court issued its decision on January 22 1973 with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of McCorvey Burger and Douglas concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately. in the companion case of Doe Bolton. By a vote of seven to two, the court justices ruled that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions.
1973年1月22日，最高法院以7票对2票的多数票支持了麦考维。伯格和道格拉斯的一致意见和怀特的异议意见分别发表。在辅助案例中法院法官以7:2的投票结果裁定，政府无权禁止堕胎。
The court's judgement was based on the decision that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters as protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Courts ruling.
法院的判决是基于一项决定，即妇女终止妊娠的权利属于受美国宪法第十四条修正案保护的家庭事务个人选择自由。这一决定使妇女在怀孕前三个月拥有着完全的自主权，并对妊娠第二阶段和第三阶段规定了不同程度的国家利益。结果，法院的裁决影响了46个州的法律。
While Alito’s draft opinion doesn’t cater much to Roberts’ views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies “have changed drastically” since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.“Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?” asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.
虽然阿利托的意见草案并没有太迎合罗伯茨的观点，但其中的部分内容似乎旨在解决其他法官的具体利益。其中一篇文章认为，自20世纪70年代以来，社会对非婚怀孕的态度“发生了巨大变化”，收养需求的增加使得堕胎无关紧要了。巴雷特问：“为什么安全港法案不解决这个问题?”七个孩子中，她收养了其中的两个。
