Planned Parenthood Case Study

It is not legal for a state to deny the people personal, marital, family, and sexual right to privacy. No case in history has the court declared that a fetus, which is an infant developing in the womb, is a person. Therefore, a fetus does not have any legal “right to life”. Roe argued the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.” In Roe’s argument the issue being appealed would be that she, the plaintiff has the right to obtain an abortion whether the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or not. An abortion is solely the mothers decision and the child is unborn therefore has no rights and need not be protected by the States or Constitutional law(Roe v Wade,

The laws on the books and consequent court choices identifying with them have, after some time, been fixing to two inquiries: whether ladies have the privilege to have premature births, and when does an unborn youngster have a case to privileges of its own. The point of interest choice Roe v. Wade from 1973 goes far in characterizing who gets rights and when. As indicated by the choice composed by Justice Blackmun, the privilege to premature birth is guarded by the fourteenth Amendment. The content of the revision particularly utilizes "conceived" in the criteria to qualify somebody for the security rights ensured in the correction. At the point when the ethical issue of when another life starts is disregarded, it refutes any rights that a gathering of cells and/or baby could have. (Blackmun) However, Roe versus Wade additionally puts the confinement that, at one point (typically in the third trimester of pregnancy), the unborn youngster achieves a state of feasibility which allows it the privilege not to be prematurely ended, aside from cases of assault or interbreeding or if having the child is perilous to the mother. (Blackmun) The rights and cutoff points set out in Roe versus Wade speak to what the vast majority in America think about fetus removal, paying little respect to what they think about it ethically. (Gallup) Roe v. Wade isn't the main huge Supreme Court case

REASON The court held that it is the primary responsibility of the pregnant women’s physician to determine the termination of pregnancy during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the State is allowed to intervene in the termination of an unborn fetus with legitimate interest in the pregnant women’s health. The State would intervene by regulating the procedures surrounding the women’s health. In the third trimester, the State may regulate the procedures surrounding the women’s health and even prohibiting the abortion altogether, keeping the pregnant women’s health a top priority. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the lawsuit regarding pregnancy, is an exception to the general rule that a difference must occur during each stage of the judicial review, and not only when the action is proposed. The Does complaint searching for injunctive relief was solely based on the contingencies which might or might not have occurred. It was irrelevant for the Court to decide Dr. Hallford’s case for injunctive relief, because once the Supreme Court found the laws unconstitutional, the Texas Government were not allowed to enforce them. The dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist was that the right to an abortion is not widely accepted by everyone, and that the right to privacy on the matter of abortion is not constitutionally involved in this case. In addition, Justice White made his dissenting opinion based on the constitutional foundations surrounding Jane Roe and the Does, stating: "In every other case, there was something in the Constitution you could point to for support. There, nothing.” Justice White would later conclude that he would return the issue back

Since taking the reins in 2006, Cecile Richards has spearheaded Planned Parenthood through difficult times to ensure it has emerged better than before.

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

However, there are also hidden motives that Mrs. Black doesn’t mention in her reasoning for supporting the bill. For instance, out of the top 5 industries that donated money towards her campaign, 4 of them were in the health service industry (OpenSecrets.org - Diane Black). If this bill would have passed and Planned Parenthood would have been defunded for a year or indefinitely, this would have benefitted Black’s top donors. This is the case because nearly 80% of the women who use Planned Parenthood’s services had incomes at or below the federal poverty level, and “27% of all women in the United States who obtain contraceptive services do so at publicly funded health centers” such as Planned Parenthood (Goldschmidt and Strickland, 2015). Since

Regardless of the opinions surrounding abortion, a majority of people are familiar with the Supreme court cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These two cases have played a tremendous role in regard to the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was ruled in favour of Roe and stated the stringent criminalization of abortion in Texas was deemed unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The law violated the right of privacy, which implied the privacy of a woman’s decision to an abortion. Although the courts agreed with Roe, they also recognized the rights to an abortion are not absolute. Limitations to the right was based on the trimesters of pregnancy with the first trimester protecting the woman’s choice and the third trimester being acceptable for states to regulate or even ban abortions outside of therapeutic reasons.

Roe vs. Wade is the decision made popular by Supreme Court that challenged the abortion law and argued that it was unconstitutional to not allow a woman to control her own body, including the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Roe vs. Wade has provided a fundamental basis for nearly all of the laws regarding abortion that exist today. The ruling that "the right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman 's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." (Roe. v. Wade, 1973). However, aside from the obvious issue of whether or not it is a woman 's right to choose, the idea of a mother 's physical safety. In cases where the mother may be put in grave danger if she were forced to give birth to a child, some people feel

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

The recent controversy over the pro-choice group The Center for Medical Progress alleging that Planned Parenthood is involved in the sale of aborted fetal tissue has catalyzed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood all across the nation. In the United States, abortion rights are a rather polarizing issue. This being the case, various media sources are prone toward writing biased articles reporting on the current Planned Parenthood controversy. The articles either had a mostly left leaning or right leaning view toward the issue. Only one article that I chose, from the BBC News, gave a largely neutral account of the controversy over these videos. The weight of the implications of defunding Planned Parenthood is significant because it affects

“[The] right to privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." (White, 94)

But in January of 1973, when the Supreme Court announced their decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court took on new life, as its decision pronounced the Court a maker of public policy. Through Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created the blueprints for a national abortion policy. A policy that declared a woman’s right to an abortion unconditionally protected by the constitutional right to personal privacy. The framework, the general principle of Roe v. Wade was properly decided. The Constitutional right of personal privacy should be interpreted to include a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. However, some areas of the Court’s decision are flawed, particularly their decision to divide pregnancy into trimesters.

A U.S. citizen's "right to privacy" was first discussed in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article in which two Boston lawyers, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, defined it as "the right to be let alone." Since then, the right to privacy has provided the basis for a stream of revolutionary and controversial constitutional interpretations by courts across the United States, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Although decisions have come down in favor of a right to privacy, they are largely based on a broad and disputed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With the plethora of privacy issues that confront courts and policymakers in the current information

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).