Griswold court is all "penumbra"

Roe court is like "wow y'all hated that penumbra shit, ummm it's maybe 14A? but it could be 9A idk"

Casey court is "okay, we hear you, 14A, it's 14A"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38261994)

This right of 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. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38261961)

Everyone agrees there are certain times where the constitution protects certain things that are private in certain contexts

There's no freestanding "right to privacy"

Better question for court today: does the fact that the state shall not deprive anyone of "liberty" without "due process of law" include the "liberty" to abort

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38262009)

con justices do not believe the constitution provides a freestanding "right of privacy." They believe the constitution provides many specific protections - such as a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure - but that there is no general protection for privacy anywhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38262012)

libs? when it suits

kyllo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38262072)

This later got morphed into something like the state cannot put undue burdens on women before viability of the fetus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38262992)

that's why casey overturned it, because it was sps

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38263276)

Casey is controlling

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38264252)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38265289)

1. Roe is like an important kind of precedent we can't just toss out.

2. While we were kind of uncertain where in the Constitution talks about abortion, we're saying it's a woman's "liberty" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. The "trimester" framework we made up was SPS so we're throwing it away and instead saying the woman's liberty interest is high before fetal viability and low after fetal viability.

4. Any laws restricting abortion before fetal viability can't place an "undue burden" on the woman (which means pretty much whatever 5 justices say).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4265559&forum_id=2#38265980)