Roe V. Wade Court Case

In Texas the social workers would have to allow the parent of the minor to know that the child wants t get an abortion. In fact the child could not get an abortion without the signature of at least one of her parents. Title two subtitle 33 states that A pregnant minor who wishes to have an abortion without notification to one of her parents, her managing conservator, or her guardian may file an application for a court order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of an abotion without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator

Which of the following is an opinion issued when a Supreme Court justice agrees with the outcomes reached by the majority but not with the legal reasoning behind the decision?

Previously in Texas Family Code Ch. 33, combined with Occupation Code § 164.052(a) (19) the law required that a minor obtain the consent of her parent, managing conservator or legal guardian if she wished to have an abortion. She could obtain a bypass to consent if she demonstrated that she: (1) she was sufficiently mature and well informed to consent to the abortion, (2) that the notification of her parents would not be in her best interests, or (3) the notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Many of those under 18 may have been raped or sexually assaulted by a relative and will not discuss their mistreatment if they fear legal action against their parent(s) or that CPS will become involved. Minors could seek a confidential judicial bypass if they were in fear of being abused at home because of their pregnancy or abortion and/or if they don’t have parental approval. Also, if a judge did not rule on a minor’s application, her request for a bypass was considered granted. This judicial bypass was created to protect abused or neglected pregnant teens who cannot safely turn to a parent or cannot find a parent. Some argue that the bill may violate a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the bypass process must be confidential and

The Supreme Court agreed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority had different views

Procedural History: The federal court refused to hear the case because it is in question whether or not

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

When considering the final court that took place, there were two men, McLean and Curtis, who

Casey was another case that the Supreme Court had debated on to decide the rights of states to limit an abortion. This was a case that was against the legislature of Pennsylvania called the Abortion Control Act which required informed consent and 24 hours of waiting period before an abortion. This Abortion Control Act also required minors who wanted to have an abortion to get their parents consent and married woman were require to notify their husband of an abortion plan. The ruling of the case was 5 to 4 in which the court allowed the restrictions provided by the act but also stopped the state from creating an undue burden strict rules that may stop the woman decision to an abortion. The case ruled in favor of the state that required woman who want an abortion to be inform of the procedure, receive consent from their husbands, and wait 24 hours. Also, if a minor want to get an abortion they need to obtain parental consent, without violating the right to abortion as guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade. As Justice O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter

Justice Ginsburg wrote a 36-page dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The first eight pages outline the extensive effort put forth by congress when researching, crafting and updating the 2009 version of the VRA. Justice Ginsburg argues that the question before the court ought to be whether or not congress acted appropriately within the authority granted under the constitution, namely the 15th amendment and the constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause as interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted” to address the issue of discrimination in voting with appropriate legislation. The justice argues that the majority does not follow established precedent or tests when determining the ruling in this case as set out by MuCulloch v. Maryland, Norwest Austin, Katzenberg, or City of Rome. Ginsburg uses these examples to contend that the majority is improperly evaluating the case and creating an entirely new precedent that ignores current case law. Instead of ruling on the constitutional breadth of authority provided by the rationality test and the 15th amendment, the majority has chosen instead to pass judgment on the language in the

Texas v. Johnson. This case not only set a precedent, but also brought to question the

In the history of the Supreme Court’s decisions, there were cases which subsequently overturned by later cases. In most cases which the court almost split it votes, for instance 5-4 votes like in this very case, the dissending arguments have been morely supported.

What precedent or laws did the court use in order to come to its ultimate conclusion?

There were no concurring opinions but there were two dissenting. Justice Douglas argued that because the court changes their mind frequently concerning the standard to which obscene materials are held to, that Miller should not be punished for the negligence of the Court (Miller v. California, 1973). Justice Brennan argued that Court, Congress, or States could not decide whether obscene materials are protected or not under the First amendment (Miller v. California,

A published court opinion is the explanation of a court 's judgment on the outcome of a particular court case. A published court opinion can include a judge’s opinion when the trial court judgment is appealed to the court of appeals. The judge’s opinion typically consists of case precedents, fact analysis, applicable law and the arguments of the attorneys for the parties. The court of appeals can have as many as three to nine judges and therefore, there are frequently “dissenting opinions” (judges who disagree with the majority opinion) and “concurring opinions” (judges who agree with the majority opinion) (Hill). To locate this court opinion, I first went on the Pennsylvania State University Database web page. From there I needed to locate the link to the “Lexis Nexis Academic.” After clicking on the link to “Lexis Nexis Academic,” I clicked on “Look up a Legal Case” and located the court opinion by typing in the case abbreviations, 290 P.3d 1158, in the search by citation box.

Likewise, national health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act only cover abortions when the mother’s life is endangered. A woman has to go through state-directed counseling that includes information that is designed to discourage the woman from having an abortion, then she must wait 24 hours before the abortion procedure can be done. A minor needs the consent of their parents in both North and South Carolina before an abortion may be provided. Women cannot be over 24 weeks pregnant in SC. The pregnant woman’s written consent is required for an abortion to be performed in South Carolina. However, if she’s under 17 years and unmarried, the consent of at least one parent, grandparent, or guardian is required, except in medical emergencies or if the pregnancy is the result of