Majority Reasoning: (Justice Blackmun) A. Rule: The State of Texas asserts it’s rule (a law banning all abortions) is furthered by 2 interests: (1) Protecting prenatal life and (2) the medical safety of woman. The court accepts these interests, but rejects Texas’s absolute rule because: 1. There are 2 counter-weighing interests of the woman: a. The woman has a privacy right grounded in a "penumbra" of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, because "activities relating to marriage, procreation, family relationships, and child rearing and education" are "fundamental" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." b. The woman also has an interest in avoiding possible severe physical and psychological harm if an abortion is denied. 2. Also, a fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the constitution, so it doesn’t get protection as a person. 3. Therefore, a proper rule balances the interests of the state v. the interests of the woman: in the early stages of pregnancy, the woman has stronger interests than the state, but as a fetus becomes more advanced, the state interests in prenatal life and a woman’s health grow to be "compelling," thus overriding the woman’s interests. This results in a 3-part RULE (trimester framework) the court announces: a. first trimester of pregnancy: no/little state interest in regulating abortion, so most abortion regulations are invalid. b. second trimester: moderate state interest (medical health of woman) so most medical regulations are okay. c. third trimester: Compelling state interest (fetal viability) so can outlaw abortion except to save woman’s life. B. Application: Here (in this case) Texas’s law violates this framework, because it outlaws abortions not just in the third trimester, but also in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.