Planned Parenthood V. Wade Summary

Words: 1007
Pages: 5
Open Document
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia. Dred Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson. After his owner died, the ownership reassigned to his wife Eliza Irene Emerson. Scott decided to sue her to gain their freedom. He claimed that because they had lived in a free state and territory where slavery was prohibited, they were truly already free. Supreme Court decision stated that slaves were not citizens. Just living in a free state or territory, even if it was for years, did not free slaves. Supreme court declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
Justice Taney wrote that Scott was not a free man for two main reason, first being that he had no right to sue in federal court because of him being African American, was not a citizen and second …show more content…
How is the right to privacy derived from the Constitution in Roe v. Wade? How is the right to an abortion derived from the Constitution in Roe v. Wade? Is this derivation sufficient for the legitimate use of judicial review? What limits, if any, are there to such a right according to Roe v. Wade? In Planned Parenthood v. Casey what is Justice O’Conner’s reasoning for upholding Roe v. Wade? What part of the Constitution does she argue protects the right to abortion? What part of the Constitution does she argue protects the right to abortion? Consider in your answer her concern for stare decisis. Why does she discuss stare decisis at such length? What new standard does she set for deciding whether any restriction on the right to abortion is …show more content…
Strict scrutiny requires the law to be narrowly tailored and serve a government interest. So in order to restrict abortion, the compelling government interest according to Roe v. Wade is to protect the mother and the compelling point where the protection of mother allows the state to restrict abortion after the end of the first trimester, and viability of pregnancy (meaningful life outside of mother’s womb). In regards to the third trimester, the state has obtained a compelling interest, which would terminate the woman’s right to privacy and rationalize rigorous guideline even to the degree of prohibiting Abortions as it clearly poses threat to the health of the mother. Legal interference in the first trimester cannot be taken against the right to privacy and right to abortion. After the end of the first trimester, States may make medical administration. From the time of viability (meaningful life outside of a mother’s womb) around the end of the second trimesters states may forbid abortion especially when the continued pregnancy compromises the mother’s life or
Show More

Related Documents: Planned Parenthood V. Wade Summary

Summary Of Planned Parenthood V. Wade

The Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973) gave the protected right under the fourteenth amendment to access abortion services. The fourteenth amendment, also known as the “Due Process Clause”, offers protected rights for civilians that can’t be infringed by the state’s laws. Arguing with the amendment, the law gives patients rights of privacy when it comes to their reproductive health. The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey states that the states can have “legitimate interest” in the case of…

Words 382 - Pages 2

Summary Of Planned Parenthood V. Wade

government, due to the outcome of Roe v. Wade. This guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion, and under the 14th amendment, it was concluded that liberty, which protects a person’s privacy, includes the right to abortion. By acknowledging this right, they affirmed that government intrusion in personal reproductive decisions is a violation of the Constitution. However, in 2022, this decision and that of Planned Parenthood v. Casey were overturned in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization…

Words 364 - Pages 2

The Fight For A Choice: The Roe V. Wade Case

The Fight for a Choice In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was resolved. Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe, went against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County. The Supreme Court eventually affirmed that abortions were legal in the United States. Although it was a game changer for the pro-life and pro-choice debate, abortion is still banned in several states. Because a woman should be able to make her own decisions about her body, abortion should be kept legal in the United States.…

Words 836 - Pages 4

Griswold Vs Jackson Right To Privacy

Freedom of Religion. There are certain cases that prove this right, such as situations from birth control to wiretapping. The topic Right to Privacy is something many people take seriously Examples of these cases would be Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Dobbs v. Jackson. Privacy is something that most people feel is important. They feel as if they should have a right to, and yet the Constitution never uses the word privacy. Many are concerned if they have a right to privacy. Privacy is an…

Words 1872 - Pages 8

Samuel Alito Supreme Court Justice Paper Moot Court

If a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed. Isn’t that right?” (Alito, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). He argues against the viability line, highlighting the fact that a woman who is not yet at “viability” nonetheless wants to end her pregnancy both before and after the line has been crossed. So, is it truly unconstitutional…

Words 2886 - Pages 12

POL330 Midterm#1 Essay

Minor v. Happerset [Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee women the right to vote.] [overruled by Amendment 19th, 1920] [summary: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 1Si (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett…

Words 3008 - Pages 13

Con Law Essay

review the constitutionality of decisions and actions of other branches of government Marbury v. Madison: Courts can order executive/legislative officials to perform non-discretionary duties, but not discretionary acts; Courts can review constitutionality of statutes passed. Only original jurisdiction for specific things: Ambassadors, foreign diplomats, cases in which the state is a party. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: federal courts can review state court determinations of federal/constitutional…

Words 7565 - Pages 31