Comparing The Morgentaler Case Of 1993 And The Smolig And Scott Case

The Roe vs Wade case was and still is one of the most historical cases that hit the United States Court system. This controversial case is still talked about to this very day. The topic of abortion overall is a red button topic that when brought up often end in yelling. The case was “ Roe vs Wade, which recognised that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions -including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians” (PlannedParenthood.org ). This meant that women can now have access to safe, legal abortions without fear of government intrusion.This case was a huge step for women's rights and is a very necessary right to have. Every woman deserves access to safe, legal abortions.

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

The district court ruled in McCorvey’s favor on the merits, but didn’t grand an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion. The courts decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment.

This controversial case ruled that a woman’s ability to be able to chose to get an abortion is considered a protected liberty. It also concluded that this

FACTS: Douglas E. Metzger lived in an apartment in Lincoln, Nebraska. About 7:45 a.m on April 30, 1981 a residence of the apartment complex was parking his vehicle directly in front of Metzger’s apartment window. Metzger was standing naked with his arms at his side for five seconds. At 8:00 a.m two officers had arrived to the apartment, they observed Metzger standing naked in front of the window eating cereal. The officers said that Metzger was nude from mid-thigh on up and he was standing a foot of the window. Douglas Metzger had violated the Lincoln Municipal Code which stated, that it was unlawful for a person in the city of Lincoln to commit any indecent exposure in the presence of another person.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler and two other doctors set up a private clinic in Toronto to perform abortions on women. According to the law at that time women were required to obtain a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee that would Asses whether they qualified for an abortion. Morgentaler and his colleagues made public statements question the wisdom of these abortion laws in Canada. They believed that women should have the sole decision on having abortion. The three appellants where charged on the grounds of conspiracy amongst each other between November 1982 and July 1983 with the intent to perform an abortion on women contrary to s.423 (1) (d) and s.251 (1) of the criminal code . This was an appeal from the court of appeal for Ontario.

To prove that the Charter protects some rights but not all, a court case that involved Dr Henry Morgentaler and the Supreme Court of Canada was successful after trials. Before this case, women were only allowed to have an abortion after proper certification of approval from a hospital's Therapeutic Abortion Committee. Three doctors including Morgentaler set up an abortion clinic that allowed women to have an abortion without a certification of approval. He was later charged with illegal abortion under section 251 of the Criminal Code. Morgentaler argued that women had full right on deciding whether or not they wanted an abortion. This law was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated a woman’s right according to section 7 on the Charter.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

Regardless of the opinions surrounding abortion, a majority of people are familiar with the Supreme court cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These two cases have played a tremendous role in regard to the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was ruled in favour of Roe and stated the stringent criminalization of abortion in Texas was deemed unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The law violated the right of privacy, which implied the privacy of a woman’s decision to an abortion. Although the courts agreed with Roe, they also recognized the rights to an abortion are not absolute. Limitations to the right was based on the trimesters of pregnancy with the first trimester protecting the woman’s choice and the third trimester being acceptable for states to regulate or even ban abortions outside of therapeutic reasons.

Abortion has always been an exceptionally debatable topic, since so many people each have their own ideas and beliefs. Even today in America, normal people as well as politicians are still discussing and arguing over this very controversial topic. One Supreme Court case, known as Roe v. Wade, dealt with a Texas law outlawing abortions except in certain cases. A woman named Jane Roe wanted an abortion and eventually made her way up to the Supreme Court, where the judges essentially set down the rules for abortions. Roe argued that the Texas law violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of Roe, making the Texas law unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade is an exceedingly controversial case about abortion, but the judges undoubtedly made the proper decision in allowing abortion to be up to the woman and her doctor in the first trimester of pregnancy.

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 the 19th century, after tremendous progress in surgical processes, abortions were then conducted by surgeons on a wide scale, while medical abortions are used concurrently. However, as abortion technology prospers, legal restrictions came with it. In 1803, a English statute abolished the previously-legal first trimester abortions. The act “condemned the willful, malicious, and unlawful use of any medical substance when used with the intent to induce abortion” (Stern, 1968). In 1821, Connecticut enabled the first statute in the United States regulating abortions. Within 10 years, states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, Alabama, and others enabled abortion restriction statutes, and by 1968, 50 of the 51 jurisdictions in the United States have prohibited abortion except in the case women’s life is endangered (Ibid., at 3). In 1965, Britain, however, legalized abortion for “medical conditions of the mother, for socio-economic reasons, for eugenic considerations, and for pregnancies which resulted from rape or incestuous intercourse”, which is still law today (Ibid, at 4). In Canada, abortion has been legalized since 1969 through Bill C-150 if “a committee of three physicians determined that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's life or health” (Norman, 2012). In 1988, Canadian Supreme Court struck down bill C-150’s provision requiring committee approval to receive an abortion in its decision R v Morgentaler, legalizing abortion across Canada for any reasons (Ibid.).

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

The case of Roe vs. Wade was an example of an individual’s rights and privacy against long held doctrines based on religious beliefs. In 1973, a woman by the name of Norma L. McCorvey, using an alias of Jane Roe, was single and living in Texas. She got pregnant and wanted an abortion, but it was illegal. The case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. The Court recognized in a 7 to 2 decision that the Constitutional right to privacy should include a person’s choice to terminate their pregnancy. This case became not known as one of a person’s right to privacy, but rather the case that legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade).

One of the most controversial situations in the United States is abortion. A couple of decades ago when abortion was illegal, thousands of woman died for attempting to terminate the child’s life themselves or with unprofessional help. On January 22, 1973, in the Roe v. Wade case, Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. This has saved thousands of woman’s lives and should remain legal.