In the case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Pennsylvania law required an informed consent and a twenty-four-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed, parental or judicial consent for minors, spousal notification, and comprehensive record keeping and reporting. Many clinics challenged the Pennsylvania law after it went in affect. However, in a controversial decision, the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions, except for the husband notification. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. …show more content…
Justice Steven argued that the 24-hour delay period fails both parts of the undue burden. For a provision to be under it must be because it is too severe or lacks a legitimate rational function. For the person seeking an abortion I think they should not be required to wait 24 hours. As, a physician’s duty is to notify the patient about the requirements and procedures it should not be required for the patient to wait and process that knowledge. I believe after the physicians notifies the patient they have the option of going through with that procedure that day or waiting and making that decision. The information given is common knowledge and should not be required to wait a 24 hour to decide. This provision should not be implemented by the government it should
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
I chose to explain Casey Anthony’s behavior using the eight stage theory of identity and psychosocial development by Erik Erikson. If Casey claim against her father and brother is true about them sexually molesting her throughout her childhood, then that would have played a big role in her life and also the fact that she and her mother had a terrible relationship with a lot fighting and abuse toward one another didn’t help her case. If we take a look at Erik’s fourth stage industry vs. inferiority, it states that during this stage school aged children are very social stage of development and if they experience unresolved feelings of inadequacy and inferiority among our peers, we can have serious problems in terms of competence and self-esteem.
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
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.
Instead, the court recognized that the right to abortion was guaranteed under personal privacy. Thus, any law regulating abortion in any state across the United States was supposed to be justified by stating any of the compelling state interests. Additionally, any legislative enactment set forth should be tailored in meeting the compelling interests of all parties. The judges also agreed that the right to abortion was unlimited; therefore, it was important for the court to determine a framework that would balance the right to abortion and those of the government (Stewart et al. 307). The latter sought to protect the rights of all mothers and at the same time protect the human life. If the abortion law was completely unregulated, then there would be cases where individuals would practice abortion without factoring the important role of government in conserving life (Saad). As a result, the trimester framework that took the above issues into consideration was conceived. The framework established when the fundamental rights of women to issues relating abortion became absolute. It also established when the state's interests were more compelling than the rights of the woman. In the first trimester, the Court left the decision to the woman and the physicians. However, after the first trimester or at the end of the first trimester when fetal viability had been established, the state had a right to protect the health of the mother as well as the unborn child (Saad). The state was also required to regulate all abortion procedures so that they became reasonable. The procedures were supposed to protect and preserve maternal health. At the third trimester, the state interest would become compelling since the viability of the fetus becomes compelling. In such cases, the state has the right to regulate abortion to protect human life. Also, the
The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder. In 1973, in what has become a landmark ruling for women’s rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion. Ever since, individual states have adopted, altered, and/or mutilated the edict to fit their agendas – Texas included. However, the decision made by the justices in Roe v. Wade didn’t set clear cut, inarguable demarcation lines, which has allowed the fiery debate to consume the nation. Rather than establishing a legal ruling on what life is, or is not, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue.
This ruling forced Coffee and Weddington to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1971. It was first seen in front of a panel of seven justices which heard oral arguments on the case. After three days of conference four of the seven justices agreed that the Texas law was unconstitutional. (discuss different state)The Court still could not come to an agreement about the constitutional rationale or about whether the woman’s right to an abortion would apply to the entire period of the pregnancy. The Chief Justice assigned the case to Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Approximately six months later Justice Blackmun came up with a first draft of his preliminary opinion of Texas’ very vague abortion law. The case was then reargued before a nine-member Court on October 11, 1972. After almost two years the Supreme Court finally came to its decision with a 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. The Court stated protecting the mother 's health and protecting the potential of human life was the two competing issues of the government. The Court stated that during the first trimester, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The state has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability if the health of the mother will be in
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Abortion is a topic that many don’t want to discuss. It’s a very personal decision that many women have to make each day, but in certain states, getting an abortion was becoming an even more difficult process. Not only did women have to decide to get an abortion that alone is a difficult choice, they now had to wait 24 hours, minors had to get consent, and/or inform the father of the child. But after all of this process, what if a woman couldn’t receive all of this? Would she be denied her right to get an abortion? 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.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court noted that “tragic prevalence of men abusing their wives and said that
To be able to get an abortion, there are many restrictions that apply. Every state may different but similar restrictions when the law was formed in 1973. Even with the restrictions, many women were still choosing abortions. “The mandatory restrictions include: waiting periods typically from 24-48 hours before women receive the procedure; counseling stressing the disadvantages of abortions; requirements that minors notify their parents or receive their consent before obtaining an abortion; and prohibitions on providing abortions at public facilities,” (Glazer 1). Some women either could
...t the court left for states to ban late-term abortions. Many feel that a fetus near the end of a pregnancy is simply too like a human to come up with any justification for killing it, unless the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother. The line on the spectrum that the court ended up defining was based on when the fetus becomes viable. Before this point, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and the court left the mother with the ability to withdraw her support from the fetus. After the point of viability, society as a whole is then able to assist in taking care of the infant. This then, is where the fetus gains the added requirement to its right to life discussed earlier.