ROE v. WADE OPINION (1973) Footnote #54: 1) Life of the Mother Issue and 2) Criminalization

Footnote #54: 1) Life of the Mother Issue and 2) Criminalization

Roe v. Wade Opinion (1973)
Footnote #54


United States Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE (1973)
No. 70-18
Argued: December 13, 1971  [ Second Oral Argument October 11, 1972  – Audio at]
Decided: January 22, 1973

[ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158]   in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?  [ emphasis added ]

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty or murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?
[ emphasis added ]

Science Photos


– Unethical versus Ethical Methods of Treatment’


– 6 Week Unborn Child
– Life Cycle Books


Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare
(Sept 2012)


Over 1,000 Medical Field Signers

Three sentences:

1) “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion — the purposeful destruction of the unborn child — is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.”

2) “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.”

3) “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

Christians for Personhood Note:

The Dublin Declaration affirms it is NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY to purposefully destroy the baby by direct “abortion” to save the life of the mother.

However, above and beyond this thankful medical consideration that we NEED NOT, is the moral and ethical consideration that we MUST NOT ever intentionally destroy an innocent life; and therefore, under God, we CAN NOT, and SHALL NOT, do so,

God says,
“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”
Exodus 20:13, KJV