--- ---  # Trump's Supreme Court Pick Puts Spotlight on _Roe v. Wade_ on 150th Anniversary of the Amendment That Made the Case Possible  by [Olivia B. Waxman](https://time.com/author/olivia-b-waxman/)  ## Olivia B. Waxman Staff Writer Jul 9, 2018 9:33 PM UTC  Marchers participate in the "March for Life" rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 22, 2016. Marchers participate in the "March for Life" rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 22, 2016.Albin Lohr-Jones—Pacific Press/LightRocket— Getty Images  by [Olivia B. Waxman](https://time.com/author/olivia-b-waxman/)  ## Olivia B. Waxman Staff Writer Jul 9, 2018 9:33 PM UTC The [14th Amendment](http://time.com/5324440/14th-amendment-meaning-150-anniversary/) to the U.S. Constitution may have been [ratified](https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html) 150 years ago — on July 9, 1868 — but Monday’s news is clear proof that the amendment is as timely as ever. With President Donald Trump [set to announce](http://time.com/5332912/trump-us-supreme-court-nominee-kennedy/) on Monday night his nominee to replace [retiring](http://time.com/5323824/anthony-kennedy-retiring-supreme-court-trump/) Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, one particular case in the court’s history is front-of-mind for advocates on both sides of the aisle: [_Roe v. Wade,_](http://time.com/5110210/roe-v-wade-anniversary-abortion/) the landmark 1973 [decision](http://time.com/3669867/roe-v-wade-history/) ruling that prohibiting abortions was unconstitutional. Abortion-rights advocates [worry](http://time.com/5324828/kennedy-retirement-roe-wade-abortion-rights/) that Kennedy’s replacement could increase the chance that _Roe_ would be overturned, and those on the other side of the issue [eagerly](https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-ready-to-deploy-plan-to-repeal-roe-v-wade) hope for the fulfillment of Trump’s [campaign promise](https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625410441/which-trump-should-be-believed-on-overturning-roe-v-wade) to nominate someone who would do exactly that. And at the heart of the _Roe_ decision is the 14th Amendment. In its Due Process clause, the 14th Amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As [TIME explained](http://time.com/vault/issue/1973-02-05/page/64/) shortly after the decision was handed down, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing the opinion for the majority, ruled that this clause included an [implicit](http://time.com/5324828/kennedy-retirement-roe-wade-abortion-rights/) right to privacy for women deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy: --- > “” --- Not everyone agreed that Blackmun’s reasoning made sense. In a dissenting opinion, for example, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that “a transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word.” And some jurists and scholars who are on board with the _Roe_ holding still [disagree](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/10/problems-with-privacy-and-what-to-do-about-roe/304357/) about whether a right to privacy can really be found in the amendment, or about whether Blackmun properly explained his reasoning. Even those who disagree with the _Roe_ decision sometimes turn to the 14th Amendment for answers. Some have called for “Congress to legislate that unborn children are persons under the 14th Amendment,” as the [_National Review_](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-and-14th-amendment-michael-j-new/) sums up that side of the issue; if that were the case, the fetus would also have a right to due process and other protections, though the first part of the amendment does specify that citizens are people “born or naturalized” in the U.S. That argument gained steam in the 1980s, as _Roe v. Wade_ backlash became more of a conservative rallying point. In this period, as historian Daniel K. Williams recently [wrote](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169487), antiabortion activists began lobbying presidents to pick like-minded jurists for federal courts and abortion-rights supporters responded in kind; Williams cites the 1987 rejection of President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who had voiced [his opposition](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/02/bork-on-judicial-imperialism/60fb83a3-f529-4751-8066-7a9806883f0e/?utm%5Fterm=.895eab019a62) to _Roe_, as a turning point in the conservative effort to lobby for a nominee who would overturn the case. _Roe_ is far from the only case that involves the relationship between the 14th amendment and privacy rights. But, because of the close ties between the case and the amendment, if the Supreme Court does decide to revisit _Roe v. Wade_ in the future_,_ it could have a [ripple effect](http://time.com/5324828/kennedy-retirement-roe-wade-abortion-rights/) on the interpretation of the amendment. Like many laws and parts of the Constitution, the meaning of the 14th Amendment is still being debated 150 years later. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, argues historian Eric Foner, who [wrote](https://www.thenation.com/article/embrace-ambiguity-14th-amendment/) on the occasion of the amendment’s anniversary that Americans should “embrace” its “imprecise” language: “Ambiguity,” he wrote, “creates possibilities.” Roe v. Wade's Future and the 14th Amendment's Anniversary ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5333372/fourteenth-14th-amendment-roe-v-wade-supreme-court/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5333372/fourteenth-14th-amendment-roe-v-wade-supreme-court/"},"headline":"Trump's Supreme Court Pick Puts Spotlight on Roe v. Wade on 150th Anniversary of the Amendment That Made the Case Possible","datePublished":"2018-07-09T21:33:13.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-23T20:47:36.569Z","description":"Renewed focus on the case coincides with the birthday of the 14th Amendment","url":"https://time.com/5333372/fourteenth-14th-amendment-roe-v-wade-supreme-court/","keywords":["Courts","Law"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0c09173dca27605e/698934e497cdff132c6b5af8/roe-v-wade-14th-amendment.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Olivia B. Waxman","jobTitle":"Staff Writer","url":"https://time.com/author/olivia-b-waxman/"}],"articleSection":"History","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0c09173dca27605e/698934e497cdff132c6b5af8/roe-v-wade-14th-amendment.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Pro-Life marchers participate in the \"March for Life.\" Tens","caption":"Pro-Life marchers participate in the \"March for Life.\" Tens","creditText":"Albin Lohr-Jones—Pacific Press/LightRocket— Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/history/","name":"History"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/courts/","name":"Courts"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5333372/fourteenth-14th-amendment-roe-v-wade-supreme-court/","name":"Trump's Supreme Court Pick Puts Spotlight on Roe v. Wade on 150th Anniversary of the Amendment That Made the Case Possible"}}]}] ```