Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
This case was different than the other two cases that I wrote about and researched. This case was held in front of the Rehnquist Court on April 21, 1992. This was actually a petition to evaluate several statues that Pennsylvania requires from a woman seeking an abortion. The Constitutional questions were… Can a state require a women to have consent from their husband before getting an abortion? Can a state require a 24 hour waiting period before a woman can receive an abortion? Can a state require a pregnant minor to obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion? Is it unconstitutional for a woman seeking an abortion to be forced to receive counsel and alternative options from
…show more content…
According to Cornell University Law School, certiorari is a Latin term meaning “to be more fully informed,” and usually applies when orders from a lower court are given to a higher court for review. Kolbert confirmed that she did plan to address those in her argument. Kolbert began by addressing the State of Pennsylvania’s provision in regards to husband notification, which says that any married woman that seeks an abortion must notify her husband beforehand. Kolbert referenced Roe v. Wada and stated that it has already been found unconstitutional under the privacy clause. Kolbert then referenced both the Thornburgh and Akron cases again in the unconstitutional regards to the 24 hour waiting period that the state requires. While arguing the reasons why Pennsylvania’s provisions regarding abortion were unconstitutional Kolbert referenced a few other cases that have been in front of the Supreme Justice. Kolbert announced that the court must recognize the findings of, “Brown, Bolling, Griswold, and Loving,” I am assuming that she used these case references because they all apply to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, throughout the argument she puts the most emphasis on the Roe v. Wade court
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
Roe and her attorneys asked the federal district court to declare that the Texas abortion statute violated her rights under the Constitution. They also asked the court t...
a woman has the right to an abortion. The court that day, however, did not rule
On January 22, 1973, a monumental ordeal for all of the United States had come about, which was that abortion was legalized. It was the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade that made us take a turn on this political issue. In this case, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) was an unmarried woman who wasn’t permitted to terminate her unborn child, because the Texas criminal abortion law made it impossible to perform an abortion unless it was putting the mother’s health in danger. Jane Roe was against doing it illegally, so she fought to do it legally. In the court ruling, they acknowledged that the lawful right to have privacy is extensive enough to cover a woman’s decision on whether or not she should be able to terminate her pregnancy.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
Over 30,000 cases have been heard since the Supreme Court existed but only a few have actually been chosen to be ruled on. Many cases not only affect those involved personally but they affect the American people as a whole. Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970 who was trying to have an abortion and claimed that Texas law violated her First, Fourth, Fifth Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights . Roe v. Wade was a very important case to all woman then and now because it ensured the right that woman have to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This case impacted the political, social, and economic society of the American woman, men, and families still to this day.
In the absence of an agreement determining when life begins, state sovereignty has allowed state legislators the authority to shape a state’s policy on abortion. Thus, what has occurred across the United States is the ability for states to enact legislation which places severe limitations on when and how a pregnancy may be te...
Planned Parenthood federation of America (PPFA), is widely known as Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive healthcare and family planning services. Planned Parenthood is the nation 's leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate (Planned). Planned Parenthood receives federal funding from the government to help practice the services they provide, but some groups believe that funding this organization is morally wrong. Specifically, in the recent Republican Presidential debates, defunding Planned Parenthood and Abortion rights have been the central topic. However if the government were to move forward with the defunding
Planned Parenthood provides much important health care to women in the United States. Therefore the Government (State and Federal) should continue to fund the organization. PPFA (Planned Parenthood Federation of America) provides a high variety of service at affordable pricing to women, men, and teenagers. Planned Parenthood has been categorized by some government representatives as an organization that misspend funds as well as some religious systems that oppose abortion. PPFA have also supply communities with guidance, health services, abortion services as well as referrals for adoption.
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
The Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, wasn’t known for what it did, but mainly for what it did not do, which was not overruling Roe v. Wade, but reaffirming a woman’s right to an abortion; it questioned a state’s right to impose or place an “undue burden” on women. Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey was argued on April 22, 1992 and the official decision was reached on June 29, 1992. The case dealt with a couple of “hot topics” including privacy and abortion. At the time, Pennsylvania had made a new abortion control law in 1988 and it was finalized in 1989. This law requires all women to get informed consent and wait twenty-four hours before they are allowed to get an abortion.
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many people believe abortion is a moral issue, but it’s also a constitutional issue (Messerli 1). The right of the woman to speak about this issue is hers, and is guaranteed by the ninth amendment, which is the right to privacy. The ninth amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Boland 7) This amendment guarantees the right to women, so if they choose to have an abortion, up to the end of their first trimester it is theirs. Regardless of morals, a woman has the right to privacy and a ...
With so many women choosing to have abortions, it would be expected that it would not be so greatly frowned up, yet society is still having problems with its acceptance. Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself, free from government interference, whether or not to have an abortion. Today, more than ever, American families do not want the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters. That is why, even though Americans may differ on what circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question of who should make this personal decision, the majority of Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this private choice for herself. Anti-choice proposals to ban abortions for “sex-selection” or “birth-control” are smokescreens designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this issue and trivialize the seriousness with which millions of women make this highly personal decision. Any government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force all women to publicly justify their reasons for seeking abortion.
In the year March 1970, a woman dubbed Jane Roe took federal action against Texas abortion laws. These laws prevented Roe from terminating her pregnancy because abortions were only allowed in the scenario that the fetus was harming the life of the mother (Rosenbaum 63). Because Roe wasn’t in any way harmed by her pregnancy, she could not get an abortion. “Roe believed that TX statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments” (Rosenbaum 64). She wanted an abortion done professionally in a clean and safe environment (Rosenbaum 63). Women before the legalization of abortion would resort to unsafe methods to terminate their baby (Tribe 113).