Roe states “Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators.” In saying this the court is merely saying that a prenatal does not qualify as a person, and has no pre-natal application. The court did not answer the question or dispute over what is to be considered when life begins. Instead, justified with saying that “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer”. The court felt that because there is no say anywhere in the constitution that pre-natal is not considered a “person” or “life”, there can be no law protecting something which does not fall under the fourteenth amendment.…show more content… These concerns justify the State in treating the procedure as a medical one.” This implies that the states concern over women and the fetus justifies in their reasoning as treating the procedure as a medical one, but is limited. Justice Douglas goes on to explain that this does not include ones “psychological, as well as physical wellbeing” and because a women’s certain health issues are not specified for this, the state’s law is vague. The limited reasoning for which an abortion may be sought goes against the constitutional right to privacy which as had stated earlier were established in Griswold. Douglas felt that women may have certain reasoning for abortion that would not necessarily be classified as a “health”
