Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss the case of Roe vs Wade at the General Forum; Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:34 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default the case of Roe vs Wade



Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

The case began in 1970 when “Jane Roe”—a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (1947–2017)—instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and attempted to balance a woman’s right of privacy with a state’s interest in regulating abortion. In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly “to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” The Court then attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the Court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability, which occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court invoked its decision in Casey to strike down two provisions of a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centres and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Four years later, in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (2020), the Court invoked Whole Woman’s Health to declare unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that was, as the majority noted, nearly identical to Texas’s admitting-privileges law.
In May 2021 the Supreme Court agreed to review in its October 2021 term a lower court’s decision to strike down a Mississippi state law, adopted in 2018, that banned most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, well before the point of fetal viability. Although the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Mississippi lawmakers passed the measure in the hope that an inevitable legal challenge would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority of justices would overturn or drastically reduce the scope of those decisions. The single question that the Court agreed to consider in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was whether all pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. In May 2022 an apparent draft of a majority opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in what would be an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In May 2021 Texas adopted a law, S.B. 8, that effectively banned almost all abortions beyond the time at which fetal cardiac activity (a “fetal heartbeat”) can be detected, or about the sixth week of pregnancy. The law was unlike several other fetal-heartbeat statutes passed in other states (and subsequently struck down in the courts) in that it shifted responsibility for enforcing the ban from state officials to private citizens. S.B. 8 empowered any citizen to file a civil lawsuit against anyone who performs an abortion, or “aids or abets” the performance of an abortion, of a fetus more than six weeks old. The citizen plaintiffs, if successful in their lawsuits, would be awarded $10,000 plus legal costs (to be paid by the defendants); parties who successfully defended themselves against such lawsuits would not be reimbursed for their legal costs. The law made no exceptions for rape or incest. Because state officials would not be enforcing the law, they presumably could not be named as defendants in any legal action requesting a judge to block enforcement of the law or to declare it unconstitutional.

Two days before S.B. 8 was to take effect (September 1), a group of abortion providers in Texas filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking that it block enforcement of the law or vacate an appeals court ruling that had halted litigation of the providers’ challenge, Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, in federal district court. After three days a slim majority (5–4) of the Court announced its decision not to intervene, because the providers’ application “presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” and because “it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit”—including two state officials and a prominent antiabortion activist—“can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention.” The majority stressed, however, that in declining to block enforcement of the law it was not passing any judgment on the law’s constitutionality. In another emergency request filed in October, the U.S. Justice Department asked the Court to vacate an appeals court’s stay of a federal district court’s order, issued in United States v. Texas, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law. Although the Court declined to reinstate the district court’s order, it agreed to an expedited review of both cases on two closely related questions: whether a state can prevent federal court review of a state law by delegating its enforcement to the general public and whether the federal government can bring suit in federal court against Texas state officials and all private citizens to prohibit enforcement of S.B. 8.

The Court issued decisions in the two cases on December 10, 2021. In Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue a challenge to S.B. 8 in federal court against certain state officials, though it once again declined to enjoin enforcement of the law. In United States v. Texas, the Court declared in a tersely worded opinion that it had wrongly accepted (“improvidently granted”) the Justice Department’s request that it consider reinstating the district court’s stay of S.B. 8. The case was thereby dismissed.

In 1998, having undergone two religious conversions, McCorvey publicly declared her opposition to abortion. However, in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by antiabortion groups to support their cause.
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.

Last edited by saltwn; 05-11-2022 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:37 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Norma McCorvey, née Norma Lea Nelson, also known as Jane Roe, (born September 22, 1947, Simmesport, Louisiana, U.S.—died February 18, 2017, Katy, Texas), American activist who was the original plaintiff (anonymized as Jane Roe) in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade (1973), which made abortion legal throughout the United States.

McCorvey grew up in Texas, the daughter of a single alcoholic mother. She got into trouble frequently and at one point was sent to a reform school. She married and became pregnant at 16 but divorced before the child was born; she subsequently relinquished custody of the child to her mother. In 1967 she gave up a second child for adoption immediately after giving birth. When she became pregnant again in 1969, she wanted to have an abortion. In Texas at the time, such a procedure was legal only if the mother’s life would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. McCorvey was referred to feminist lawyers Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who had been seeking just such a client to challenge the laws restricting access to abortion.
McCorvey was hoping that she would quickly gain permission to receive an abortion, but she was unsuccessful. Coffee and Weddington changed the case to a class-action suit, and, by the time a ruling was made by a federal three-judge panel in June that the Texas law against abortion was unconstitutional, McCorvey had given birth and again given up the infant for adoption. The state of Texas appealed, and in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy a pregnant woman did have the right to have an abortion “free of interference by the State.”

Though McCorvey identified herself shortly thereafter as the plaintiff Jane Roe, she remained mostly out of the limelight for the next decade. In the early 1980s she began volunteering at an abortion clinic and also began speaking out in favour of the right to choose, becoming increasingly well known. In 1989 McCorvey was portrayed by the actress Holly Hunter in the TV movie Roe vs. Wade, and that same year activist lawyer Gloria Allred took McCorvey under her wing.

However, in 1995 McCorvey befriended Philip Benham, head of the aggressive pro-life organization Operation Rescue, and she soon began campaigning against the right to abortion. In 1998 she converted to Roman Catholicism after coming under the influence of Frank Pavone, who led the pro-life Priests for Life. But in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by anti-abortion groups to support their cause.

McCorvey published two memoirs: I Am Roe (1994; with Andy Meisler) and Won by Love (1997; with Gary Thomas).
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:38 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” In all, the amendment comprises five sections, four of which began in 1866 as separate proposals that stalled in legislative process and were later amalgamated, along with a fifth enforcement section, into a single amendment.
This so-called Reconstruction Amendment prohibited the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and from denying anyone within a state’s jurisdiction equal protection under the law. Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, the section of the Constitution apportioning representation in the House of Representatives based on a formula that counted each slave as three-fifths of a person was replaced by a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment specifying that representatives be “apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” The amendment also prohibited former civil and military office holders who had supported the Confederacy from again holding any state or federal office—with the proviso that this prohibition could be removed from individuals by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. Moreover, the amendment upheld the national debt while exempting the federal government and state governments from any responsibility for the debts incurred by the rebellious Confederate States of America. Finally, the last section, mirroring the approach of the Thirteenth Amendment, provided for enforcement.
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:39 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

The full text of the amendment is:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:40 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Among those legislators responsible for introducing the amendment’s provisions were Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, Rep. Henry Deming of Connecticut, Sen. Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri, and Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. The Congressional Joint Resolution proposing the amendment was submitted to the states for ratification on June 16, 1866. On July 28, 1868, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, it entered into force. However, its attempt to guarantee civil rights was circumvented for many decades by the post-Reconstruction-era black codes, Jim Crow laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s “separate but equal” ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:45 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,078
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, legal case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, that redefined several provisions regarding abortion rights as established in Roe v. Wade (1973).

In 1988 and 1989 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, led by Governor Robert Casey, enacted new abortion statutes that required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent, that a minor seeking an abortion obtain parental consent (the provision included a judicial waiver option), that a married woman notify her husband of her intended abortion, and, finally, that clinics provide certain information to a woman seeking an abortion and wait 24 hours before performing the abortion. Before any of these laws could take effect, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania brought suit against the governor, protesting the constitutionality of the statutes.
In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the “essential holding” (i.e., the basic principle) of Roe v. Wade, that women have a right to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability, but rejected Roe’s trimester-based framework for allowing states to curb the availability of abortion in favour of a more flexible medical definition of viability. The decision restated that the source of the privacy right that undergirds women’s right to choose abortion derives from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, placing individual decisions about abortion, family planning, marriage, and education within “a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” The judgment also revised the test that courts use to scrutinize laws relating to abortion, moving to an “undue burden” standard: a law is invalid if its “purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Ultimately, the court upheld all the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute under attack except for the requirement of spousal notification.
Many suits brought after Planned Parenthood v. Casey centred on the meaning of “undue burden.” In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Supreme Court invoked the undue burden standard to strike down two provisions of a Texas state law that had required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centres. Each of the two provisions, the court held, “places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access,…and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

In May 2022 a draft of a majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
May. 3, 2022, 3:36 PM ET - A statement from the Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Chief Justice John Roberts said in that statement that an investigation into the leak would begin.
May. 3, 2022, 10:05 AM ET - In a virtually unprecedented breach of Supreme Court norms, a draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has been leaked to the media months ahead of an official ruling. In it, associate justice Samuel Alito writes that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," and "that Roe and Casey must be overruled."
Supreme Court of the United States, final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen.
Scope and jurisdiction
The Supreme Court was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as the head of a federal court system, though it was not formally established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act in 1789. Although the Constitution outlined the powers, structure, and functions of the legislative and executive branches of government in some detail, it did not do the same for the judicial branch, leaving much of that responsibility to Congress and stipulating only that judicial power be “vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” As the country’s court of last resort, the Supreme Court is an appellate body, vested with the authority to act in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; in controversies to which the United States is a party; in disputes between states or between citizens of different states; and in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In suits affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls and in cases in which states are a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction—i.e., it serves as a trial court. Relatively few cases reach the court through its original jurisdiction, however; instead, the vast majority of the court’s business and nearly all of its most influential decisions derive from its appellate jurisdiction.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2022, 07:53 PM
Esmee's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wuhan City, China
Gender: Female
Posts: 857
Thanks: 152
Thanked 398 Times in 262 Posts
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

1/ If female human can't dominate their own wombs, then what would they be on the planet?
2/ It's said that the bill is on the verge of extinction due to the shrinking of the proportion of whites.
3/ Yes, yes, only a compelling state interest can limit fundamental rights.

Last edited by Esmee; 05-11-2022 at 08:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2022, 09:03 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,521
Thanks: 950
Thanked 7,767 Times in 5,559 Posts
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmee View Post
1/ If female human can't dominate their own wombs, then what would they be on the planet?
Does that mean a woman should be able to dominate a doctor to abort her baby? Or can the government order doctors to perform abortions? What do you mean?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2022, 10:28 AM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,519
Thanks: 10,148
Thanked 8,698 Times in 5,742 Posts
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmee View Post
1/ If female human can't dominate their own wombs, then what would they be on the planet?
2/ It's said that the bill is on the verge of extinction due to the shrinking of the proportion of whites.
3/ Yes, yes, only a compelling state interest can limit fundamental rights.
Sure, they can dominate theirs womb. But the baby inside is a different story.

It's against the law to commit suicide, shouldn't that include the baby inside?
__________________
Political Correctness, is Fascism masquerading as manners - George Carlin.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2022, 11:02 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,783
Thanks: 13,095
Thanked 9,500 Times in 5,404 Posts
Default Re: the case of Roe vs Wade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmee View Post
1/ If female human can't dominate their own wombs, then what would they be on the planet?
Sure a women can dominate their womb. However, that domination should occur prior to conception. After that, there is anoter person now involved that should have a stake in the issue.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
case, roe, the, wade

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0