Nine Justices Summary

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.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was sworn into the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986 and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He took the place of Associate Justice William H. Renquist when Renquist was sworn in as Chief Justice. Justice Antonin Scalias' political affiliation is Republican. Justice Antonin started his career as a commercial lawyer for a brief period. He then taught Law at The University of Virginia. After about 4 years of teaching he went into government service starting under President Nixon and then President Ford. During President Carters reign, Justice Antonin left government service to go back to teaching law. He went back into government service under President Reagans administration and was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. Justice Antonin Scalia attended Georgetown University and graduated as the Valedictorian of his class. He then went on to attend and graduate from Harvard Law School. He is married and had nine children.

The issue of abortion is one of the most controversial topics of our time, but recently the amount of public interest has grown exponentially. A number of bills regarding this policy issue such as Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 and Child Interstate Notification Act have both greatly influenced the public’s opinion of abortion. Although, the issue of abortion hasn’t always been like this; according to Timeline of Abortion Laws and Events, an article from the Chicago Tribune, “The earliest anti-abortion laws were intended to protect women from untrained abortionists.” (Timeline) Since the 1973 passing of the Supreme Court Case, Roe V Wade, women have been able to obtain the abortion procedure in all 50 states, 46 of which were

In Casey, the plurality opinion began with the pronouncement, “[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” Ironically, the ensuing holding failed to create a clear standard for abortion laws, thereby guaranteeing decades of continued doubt about how severely states may regulate before they cross the “undue burden” line. In the decades following the Court’s decision in Casey, states have aggressively pushed back against abortion rights by passing a host of ever more restrictive statutes. With the new focus on women’s “right to know” as opposed to the fetus’s “right to life,” anti-abortion activists have found increased success in the battleground over abortion access. By holding that there must be some limit on what the state can

There are several things to learn about this particular aspect of the legal system, however, the one that stuck out the most is the understanding of words when it comes to certain laws. The meaning of words in a written law and how people interpret or understand them is extremely important, especially when dealing with such a controversial case. For example, Roe has two vital rulings that are based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “no state shall deprive any ‘person’ of ‘liberty’” (pg. 7). The Justices, who decided this case, interpreted the terms “liberty” and “unborn” in certain ways that favored their ruling in Roe v. Wade. According to Forsythe, the Justices first “interpreted ‘liberty’ to include a ‘right to privacy’ and held that abortion is part of that right to

In Roe v. Wade, Norma Mccorvey “Jane Roe” started federal action against the Dallas county, Texas district attorney, Henry Wade. Originally, Roe wanted a woman to be able to terminate any pregnancy at any time. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s opinion, ending in a ruling where an abortion could happen before the end of the first trimester. This ruling also included ways to balance state interests with a woman’s right of privacy. In the final SCOTUS opinion, the majority states, “Statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy”(Roe v. Wade).The decision made by the Supreme Court explained that the many Texas statues making abortion criminal violated both the due process clause of the 14th amendment and a woman’s right of privacy. The lasting impact made by Roe v. Wade has increased the freedoms of women as well as set precedents for many cases regarding abortion and privacy.

The court also recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute and that a state has valid interests in protecting maternal health and protecting potential life. A state is allow to ban abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health. The ability to make this personal health care decision has also enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often denied before the Roe case, The Supreme Court noted that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). According to the Economist, "Roe v. Wade may have liberated many women; yet it has also trapped America in an irresolvable clash of absolutes. On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court gave politicians the permission to interfere in the private health care decisions of women and families by creating the first federal law banning abortion procedures. The federal government made a decision to ban and criminalizes abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy . This ban affects more than just the women who need second-trimester abortions due to the fact that the Court's decision dismissed more than 30 years of precedent that prioritize women’s health when it came to laws that cast restriction on abortions. In the states that have passed laws similar to this, many women and their families were put into agonizing and tragic situations; being unable to end a pregnancy for serious medical reasons (Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion). As Politicians across the country succeed in restricting access to abortion, women are facing the consequences. Laws that restrict access to abortion hurt women's

The Abortion Control Act was heard in the Supreme Court in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992 case. The justices at the

Beginning with the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently guarded the abortion rights of women in America. Abortion advocates have praised the decision for decades, and it has become a staple, however controversial, of American law. Throughout the following decades, various cases reached the Court that forced it to reconsider its decision, and Roe v. Wade was always upheld. This changed in 2007 with Gonzales v. Carhart, the first decision in which the Court allowed certain abortion rights to be curtailed. Much evidence suggests that Gonzales is the beginning of a new trend, and that the Court may begin to slowly allow abortion rights to be eroded. Behind this change lies a battle between conservatives and liberals, not about abortion, but about the role of the Supreme Court in American politics. Unfortunately, the abortion issue, difficult in of itself, is being used as a stage on which to fight a much larger battle about our government’s structure, unnecessarily perpetuating the controversy and uncertainty surrounding abortion policy in the United States. As a result of this, it may be better for abortion advocates in pursuit of their cause to avoid the Supreme Court altogether.

The Roe versus Wade Supreme Court Case has had a huge impact on abortion laws in the United States. Before 1973, abortions were illegal and criminal, with few exceptions. Overnight, the decision in the case legalized first trimester abortions while leaving the specifications of the other trimesters up to the states. This case has led to many debates over the value of life and when life begins whether at conception, independence from mother, or first breath. All of these can be defined by religion, law, or individual beliefs. Unfortunately, none of the policies before or after Roe versus Wade have

The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) constitutional challenges and the probability of a successful outcome. First, this memo will summarize the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Next, this memo will address the legal framework the court will apply to the ACLU’s constitutional challenges based on the three Setonia abortion laws. Finally, the memo will also address whether the ACLU’s constitutional challenge to each of the three Setonia abortion laws will

Wade decision inspires many types of analyses, solutions, and criticisms. One solution is that the Court could shift its focus in abortion cases and view abortion rights as raising issues of inequality. This would mean to present the issue of a woman’s right to take complete charge of her life and destiny as well as of her position in society in relation to man. This approach is probably the most appropriate solution to the dilemma in Roe because it avoids the trimester analysis and avoids the due process

Wade was a landmark case regarding the legitimacy of the U.S Supreme Court. This case was heard in response to the issue of abortion during the 1970’s. During this time Texas enforced a law declaring that abortion was only legal when the woman’s life was in danger. The constitutionality of this law was put into questioning by Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe") when she brought a lawsuit in regard to her having an abortion despite her healthy medical condition. She claimed that, “while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment” (Mcbride, 2006). After much debate, the Supreme Court came to a decision in 1973. Chief Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the Texas law was in defiance of the right to privacy, a constitutional right. This concluded that in every state it is the woman’s decision to have an abortion until her third trimester of pregnancy. Although this case is one of the most controversial of our time, the law remains in effect throughout the country today. Because of the ruling of this case, women across the U.S can feel confident in their right to an abortion. This case helps establish legitimacy in the

The confirmation hearing went poorly for Bork. In the senate, he had both supporters and opposition. Kennedy was just as determined in hostile in the hearings as when he was campaigning against Bork. He claimed Bork was racist, sexist, and a right winged advocate rather than a judicial conservative. The democrats in the senate questioned Bork extensively. Many of Bork’s ruling and opinions were analyzed, discussed, and questioned. The democrats were trying to make Bork appear against many alienable rights, including the first amendment, women’s right, and minorities rights.

Abortion did not immediately engrave itself onto public agenda; it had help. The legal debate over the use of birth control proved to be the catalyst needed to propel abortion to the Supreme Court and into the ranks of public policy. The birth control movement was significant to Roe v. Wade because it served as a key in which to unlock the gates of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts decision to hear Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that challenged the Connecticut statute prohibiting anyone to “use any drug, article, or instrument to prevent conception or to give assistance or counsel in its use (p.39)”, is arguably the most significant factor in the Court’s