Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

==== Mootness ====
After reciting the facts of the case, the Court's opinion first addressed several legal questions involving procedure and [[justiciability]]. These included [[mootness]], a legal doctrine that prevents American federal courts from hearing cases that have ceased to be "live" controversies because of intervening events.{{sfnp|Lee|1992|pp=610–11}} Under a normal application of the doctrine, McCorvey's appeal would have been considered moot because she had already given birth to her child and therefore no longer had a pregnancy to abort.<ref>{{cite book|last=Abernathy|first=M.|year=1993|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tHhlYpWokFIC|title=Civil Liberties Under the Constitution|publisher=U. South Carolina|page=4|isbn=978-0-87249-854-9 |access-date=February 4, 2007}}</ref>

The Court concluded that an established exception to the mootness doctrine allows consideration of cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review".<ref>{{cite book |title=Federal Jurisdiction |series=Introduction to Law |first=Erwin |last=Chemerinsky |author-link=Erwin Chemerinsky |edition=4th |publisher=Aspen Publishers |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-7355-2718-8 |page=132 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wgpGAQAAIAAJ}}</ref> Blackmun noted that McCorvey might get pregnant again, and pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an [[Appeal#Appellate procedure|appellate process]]: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/#tab-opinion-1950137 ''Roe'', 410 U.S.] at 125; see also {{harvp|Schwartz|1988|pp=108–09}}</ref>