My Opinion On The Roe V Wade Case
To be frank, while reading this case I expected the Ohio Supreme Court to prosecute Gray for child endangerment under R.C. 2919.22 (A). I do not agree with any part of the majority decision; however, I do fully support the dissenting opinion. It should be stated that I wholeheartedly believe in Roe v. Wade and feel that it is the woman’s choice to choose what happens to her body. I feel that this decision is a fundamental right; however, the decision in State v. Gray does not protect any right promised to a U.S. citizen. In the dissent, Justice Wright states that no person is protected to use illegal substances and should be afforded no special protections because they are pregnant. Every citizen is asked to abide by the same rules, which is to not use illegal substances. In this case, Gray was a cocaine addict and should have faced separate punishment for that alone. Moreover, I feel that the fact that she used cocaine, a schedule 2 drug, while pregnant undoubtedly indicates that Gray caused purposeful harm to her fetus during pregnancy. In my opinion, this was an apparent violation of the duty of care obligation. Her prenatal conduct had a guaranteed outcome, and she willingly chose to commit the act of using the drug. This element of crime further suggests that Gray should be held liable for her actions.
Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to say that the average person should not consume cocaine, so there should be no differentiation of a fetus being forced to consume such a potent stimulant. Likewise, the fact that both Gray and her child had tested positive for cocaine in the bloodstream immediately evinces that Gray had used shortly beforehand. I feel that Gray could be prosecuted for the use of an illegal substance, and the sentence should be heavier because she involuntarily intoxicated a newborn.
Unmistakably, the newborn had no control over being intoxicated, hence Gray should be held liable. Similar to Gray, in Robinson v. California (1962) it is a violation to punish one for the status addiction. However, in Powell v. Texas (1968), it was ruled that it is not unconstitutional to punish one for the act of using a substance. Hence, I believe that precedents set in Robinson & Powell prove that Gray can be punished for using an illegal substance and not punished for the status of addiction. The Court has conclusive results in Gray’s bloodstream that she had used cocaine recently. She could easily be prosecuted for using a schedule 2 drug voluntarily. I believe that the Court should have relied on these cases as precedent.
Building on that note, I believe that Ohio’s state interest was increased. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) both stated that the further along a woman is in the pregnancy, the more state involvement is allowed. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the state could not regulate abortions during the first trimester because the fetus was not yet viable. Essentially, the state had no right to intervene while the fetus was deemed unviable. Roe ruled that after the first trimester had ended, with each following trimester the interest of the state increased. Moreover, with the advancement of life-preserving technologies, the viability of the fetus had changed. Planned Parenthood v. Casey rejected the trimester framework outlined in Roe, thus the state was able to legally pass regulations on procedures that have the culpability of impacting the first trimester. The precedents set in these cases allow for states to have a higher interest as a woman’s pregnancy progresses. With this in mind, I believe the fact that Gray abused substances so late in her third trimester provides Ohio with definitive state interest. I believe that Ohio has a sound argument that could easily prosecute Gray for child endangerment under R.C. 2919.22 (A).
All in all, I believe that Gray should have been prosecuted. Unlike Roe v. Wade, Gray has no right to privacy when it comes to voluntarily breaking the law. From a moral and legal standpoint, I believe that Gray is guilty. She deprived her child of the immediate right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by giving her a painful beginning burdened with an injury that was inflicted upon her before she was born. It is in the best interest of the fetus not to be subjected to illegal substances, and it is the responsibility of the pregnant woman to ensure the welfare of the fetus. Gray knowingly abused cocaine during her pregnancy, and any logical individual should understand the risk that is placed upon a fetus. I feel that her actions were a violation of the duty of care obligation because there was a substantial risk to the unborn. In my opinion, if a woman cannot provide the welfare of a fetus then she should not continue with the pregnancy. Roe v. Wade provides women with the choice of abortion, and I feel that Gray should have either terminated the pregnancy or placed herself in some sort of treatment facility until her child was born. She was unfit to be pregnant, and she should have sought alternative options. Regardless of her past choices, her more recent actions of abusing cocaine in her last trimester were clearly indicative that she was guilty, and the Court should have reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals decision.
