How to teach Roe? -Reply

[Robin Charlow]

>>> "MICHAEL S. PAULSEN" <stoke001 at MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU> 03/13/99 05:33am
>>>
If it's not an overdone topic already, I'd love to hear from people
(on list or off) about how to go about teaching Roe v. Wade (and
abortion law generally) -- what they do, what they avoid, etc.  I've
never taught the case, but have strong views on it.  (Interestingly,
I've found no book that reflects very well at all  what I think are
the most relevant points to be made.)
Withholding the prof's own views doesn't seem quite right.  But it
does seem to me that one should not make students feel so
uncomfortable or angry that teaching value is lost.

from Robin Charlow, Hofstra Law School:
        In a 6 credit, required, second year course, I spend some time
(one class hour) on Griswold and (very briefly) Eisenstadt to examine
the rationale for and establish the idea of privacy as a nontextual
right, especially in the reproductive area.  Then I cover the entire
abortion line (including Roe and Casey), as well as several other cases
in which privacy rights are and are not recognized, relatively briefly
(maybe one more class hour) as examples of extensions and nonextensions
of the already established privacy right.  The "theme" of these classes
is a challenge to the students to identify a coherent organizing
principle explaining why some such rights are recognized as
constitutional and others are not.  I find using this theme serves to
keep the students focused on principle and politics in  an otherwise
emotional area.
        By the way, I teach Marbury in some depth for the same reason I
cover Griswold and Roe -- because  the larger theme of the course, and
indeed of constitutional law as far as I'm concerned, is "Who decides?"
these issues.  Marbury sets up this theme for me, and Roe/Griswold
illuminate it's application in a context to which the students can
readily relate.