American Civil Liberties Union Memo Sample

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

The case of A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood v. Pence has brought attention to the Supreme Court with the question of which of the two is of greater importance: the duty to honor the woman’s autonomy versus the duty to respect potential life. Indiana’s governor, Mike Pence, has signed a House Enrolled Act No.1337 to amend the Indiana health code, which will go in effect on July 1 of 2016. The act affects abortions in several ways which include that doctors much provide perinatal hospice care information to women considering abortion after receiving a diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly, prohibits all abortions solely based on fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis of the fetus having any disability, and lastly requires the women to take responsibility financially for the disposal of the remain of any abortion or miscarriage. After the act was signed into law, A.C.L.U of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued Governor Pence on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood won in the district court. The case was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and was reversed. Today, the court responds to the petitioners’ appeal by holding that Indiana’s House Enrolled Act No.1337 is unconstitutional. This decision stems from the recognition that the law while attempting to do its duty

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

Jill E. Adams  is the founding executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law.  Before joining Berkeley Law she was the executive director of Law Students for Reproductive Justice for six years. She was one of 37 Soldiers of Social Change in San Francisco Magazine’s annual power issue, she is the youngest person to have received the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Fellowship for nonprofit leadership award. This piece is about the legalities of abortions and how the law is regulated and funded for. This

The Petitioners, who were antiabortion, Madsen and other protesters regularly protested the Respondent which is the Women Health Center in Melbourne, Florida. The Women’s Health center sought and was granted by a trial court and injunction on several outcomes, which restrained the Petitioners’ ability to protest. The Petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court which claimed that the injunction restricted the protester’s right of free speech that was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In May of 1991, America experienced the Supreme Court make a five justice majority decision to uphold the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations on prohibiting recipients of Title X funds from counseling patients regarding abortion, finding that this condition did not violate the recipients ' First Amendment right to freedom of speech (Stan L. Rev. 1). Prior to Rust v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade stood as the foundational case for all abortion cases to come. Roe v. Wade initiated that a woman’s right to be free of government interference in deciding whether to have ab abortion does not imply a right to have the government subsidize that procedure. However, in Rust v. Sullivan, we are dealing with the first time the government has decided to deprive pregnant women of factually correct and medically necessary information. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion addressing that the gag rule stands with the support of his claim: “The government is not denying a benefit to anyone, but is instead simply insisting that the public funds be sent for the purposes for which they were authorized.” This case brings forward major controversy making a claim that the denying of counseling regarding abortion to pregnant women can be harmful to their health and a violation of their rights stated in the First and Fifth Amendment.

The issue of abortion is notoriously controversial. Since the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, states have enacted different restrictions on the procedure. These restrictions vary from state to state. Nineteen states currently have laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and forty-one states strictly prohibit abortions except in cases of life-endangerment. One particularly incendiary area of abortion law is that of public funding. However, as of this year there are only seventeen states that cover abortion procedures through public funding. In this paper we will discuss federal abortion legislation, while describing the laws and political ideologies of the following states: Texas, California, New

In 1973, the US Supreme Court declared abortion a nationwide fundamental right through a trial called Roe vs. Wade and protected this right underneath the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy. A basic human right, especially one outlined by the Supreme Court, must never run at risk or threat chiefly because not everyone agrees with it. Under no circumstances should a pregnancy ever adjudge mandatory. Abortion is a Constitutional right and as a nation we must fight to give the right and freedom of safe abortions to women all around the nation, make birth control and sex education accessible to women, and raise awareness about the topic itself. (LawCornell)

Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. They stated that “protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.” For them, the Massachusetts law was in fact aiming to discriminate against opponents of abortion on the basis of content of speech because the statute inhibited patients seeking abortions to so much as hear about McCullen’s anti-abortion views that were at odds with those of the clinic. The second concurring opinion held by Samuel A. Alito Jr. adds that the statute had “blatantly [discriminated] based on viewpoint.” He continued, “critics of the clinic are silenced, while the clinic may authorize its employees to express speech in support of the clinic and its work.” Alito suggested that not only did the Massachusetts law limit McCullen’s speech because of its content, but also favored the clinics point of view over anti-abortion views through the creation of the 35-foot buffer

In the past few decades, the issue of abortion rights has created debates and controversy within the United States. Those who criticize the act of abortion – pro-life – argue that the act of abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. Those who support the legalization of abortion – pro-choice – argues women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in all states – a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade. However, it has become increasingly common for states to create anti-abortion laws, which makes it more difficult to have an abortion. In 2014, Missouri state representative Rick Brattin proposed H.B.131, a house bill that would require women to receive a written consent from the biological father in order to have an abortion. This bill serves to prevent women from having an abortion.

Never in the history of the United States, with the exception of the Slave Trade, has a public policy carved such an unmistakable social divide. Never before has a public policy spurned so many questions about social and political standards of American culture. To understand the abortion controversy and ultimately the Supreme Court’s involvement and decision in Roe v. Wade, the roots of abortion must be examined.