Transcript Slide 1
Privacy at Issue: the US Supreme Court's Abortion Cases Jesseca Holcomb PSC 499 November 28, 2007 The History of American Government The Declaration of Independence The U.S. Constitution English “common law” The State Supreme Court vs. Federal Supreme Court Natural Law vs. Natural Rights The concept of natural law was to clearly define the powers of the new independent nation that was equal to England. The concept of natural rights was used to clearly define the line between powers of the government and the rights of citizens Both concepts are simultaneously expressed within the text of the Declaration of Independence. Philosophers’ theories John Locke Montesquieu Rousseau John Stuart Mill Jeremy Bentham Are some rights implied Are some rights within within the Billimplied of Rights? the Bill of Rights? Right of Privacy Why is it important to Americans? It is not specifically mentioned within the Constitution Is it an “implied” right Views of Privacy Based on the Constitution The Bill of Rights can be view as exclusive. The Constitution can be thought of as a “living” document which is always changing with the passing of time. A combination of both where there is a recognition of privacy as a right and the dedication to allowing state regulations to continue. Personal Right of Privacy cases that were brought before the U.S. Supreme Court Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) History – Griswold and Buxton violated two Connecticut laws The opinion of the Court reversed the State court’s decision was reversed on the basis of marital right of privacy – Guaranteed within the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendments and the prenumbras of the Bill of Rights Roe v. Wade (1973) History – Anonymous pregnant, single woman was prevented from obtaining an abortion under Texas law. The Court recognizes that a right of personal privacy does exist within the “zones of privacy” under the Constitution – Founded in the Fourteenth and the Ninth Amendment. Maher v. Roe (1977) History – A Connecticut regulation restricted federal funding for abortions passed the “first trimester.” Majority opinion determined that the Connecticut regulation was not unconstitutional – The ability to have an abortion is still possible, but only through means of private funding. Akron v. Akron Center of Reproductive Health (1983) History – The City of Akron attempted to regulate abortion clinics. The majority opinion felt that regulations of this sort were unnecessary and served no legitimate purpose in supporting the city’s interests. – The concept of “unduly burdensome” developed by Justice O’Connor Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986) History – A Pennsylvania statute required the doctor to provide information concerning risks and alternatives to abortions while providing reports to the state and have another physician present during the abortion The majority of the Court felt that the regulations in this case interfered with a woman’s right to an abortion. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) History – The state of Missouri forbade the use of public employees and facilities for the performance of nontherapeutic abortions. The majority opinion found that Missouri’s view of abortion was not unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) History – Pennsylvania law required informed consent with provisions for emergencies, parental or guardian consent, and a collection of patient information. The majority opinion concluded that the Pennsylvania laws were not unconstitutional, except for the spousal notification. – This decision overturned the previous ruling in Akron and Thornburgh Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) History – Nebraska law banned partial birth abortions, also known as dilation and extraction (D&X) The majority opinion determined that the statute violated the decision in Casey because the language could be reasonably interpreted to ban activities other than D&X abortion procedures What is the public’s opinion? Public Opinion Public Opinion ATTITUDES TOWARD ROE V. WADE – BY PARTY ID Party ID Total 2007 Republican Democrat Independent 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 % % % % % % % Favor 56 45 37 63 55 61 56 Oppose 40 51 61 33 43 36 37 Not sure / refused 4 5 2 5 2 3 8 Conclusion Privacy will continue to be an issue because it is an unwritten law. The Supreme Court rulings have show to be inconsistent. They also showed to be inconsistent when it came to the importance of determining when life begins. Because of the inconsistencies, it is impossible to predict the future for the right of privacy or the governmental leniencies for compelling state’s interest. Selected References Johnson, John. 2005. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy. Judges, Donald. 1993. Hard Choices, Lost Voices; How the Abortion Conflict Has Divided America, Distorted Constitutional Rights, and Damaged the Courts. McWhirter, Darien, and Jon Bible. 1992. Privacy as a Constitutional Right: Sex, Drugs, and the Right to Life. Sullivan, Kathleen, and Gerald Gunther. 2004. Constitutional Law (15th Ed.). Vile, John. 1997. A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. (2nd Ed.).