privacy us-supreme-court abortion transgender
Before being overturned, did Roe v Wade grant pregnant men the right to have abortions, in addition to pregnant women?
<p>The language in the Roe v Wade decision refers over and over to the rights of a &quot;pregnant woman&quot;. Does this mean it protected only the rights of pregnant women, and not pregnant men, to procure abortions?</p>

<p><em>Roe</em> and <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/case.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Casey</a></em> refer to the category &quot;pregnant woman.&quot; But in many places, the reasons talk only about a &quot;person&quot; and the interests that underpin the reasoning would clearly apply to all pregnant people:</p>
<ul>
<li>constitutional protection of the decision to terminate one's pregnancy &quot;derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment... The controlling word in the cases before us is 'liberty'&quot; (<em>Casey</em>, p. 846)</li>
<li>&quot;Our cases recognize 'the right of the <em>individual</em>, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.'&quot; (<em>Casey</em>, p. 851)</li>
<li>&quot;the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear.&quot; (<em>Casey</em>, p. 852)</li>
<li>the plurality in <em>Casey</em> characterized &quot;<em>Roe</em>'s central holding&quot; being that &quot;viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions.&quot; (p. 860)</li>
<li>and so forth</li>
</ul>
