Dumb here. What does Roe v Wade say about abortions?
| Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Mind-boggling crotch | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Mind-boggling crotch | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Offensive Office Kitty Cat | 05/20/19 | | pontificating impressive regret theater stage | 05/20/19 | | Plum dingle berry digit ratio | 05/20/19 | | charcoal theater | 05/20/19 | | Rusted bonkers national security agency | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | milky crackhouse | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Mind-boggling crotch | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse | 05/20/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | Godawful soul-stirring headpube library | 05/20/19 | | massive giraffe market | 05/20/19 | | crawly travel guidebook | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Offensive Office Kitty Cat | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Offensive Office Kitty Cat | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Fragrant misanthropic sex offender | 05/20/19 | | Offensive Office Kitty Cat | 05/20/19 | | Frum Cheese-eating Rigor Mad-dog Skullcap | 05/20/19 | | charcoal theater | 05/20/19 | | Slimy Judgmental Pit | 05/20/19 | | crawly travel guidebook | 05/20/19 | | salmon police squad | 05/20/19 | | big shimmering mad cow disease location | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Mind-boggling crotch | 05/20/19 | | curious feces | 05/20/19 | | jade aphrodisiac old irish cottage | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | Mind-boggling crotch | 05/20/19 | | crawly travel guidebook | 05/20/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/20/19 | | jade aphrodisiac old irish cottage | 05/21/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/21/19 | | translucent bateful property | 05/21/19 | | Ungodly wagecucks | 05/21/19 | | Cruel-hearted messiness | 05/21/19 | | Multi-colored marketing idea | 05/21/19 | | Sickened place of business | 05/20/19 | | crawly travel guidebook | 05/20/19 | | Passionate insecure toaster | 05/21/19 | | Talented Philosopher-king Macaca | 05/20/19 | | Multi-colored marketing idea | 05/21/19 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: May 20th, 2019 3:35 PM Author: Ungodly wagecucks
court keeps wandering off in its theory of the case
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) |
 |
Date: May 20th, 2019 3:27 PM Author: Ungodly wagecucks
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as 1891, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.
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) |
 |
Date: May 20th, 2019 3:37 PM Author: Ungodly wagecucks
No
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) |
Date: May 20th, 2019 7:29 PM Author: jade aphrodisiac old irish cottage
it has been years since law school, but basically, the state has to balance the woman's interest in privacy with the state's interest in protecting the baby and then came up with a trimester approach, where the woman's interest trumps in the first trimester, the state's interest can trump in the third trimester, and in the second trimester there can be reasonable limitations.
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) |
 |
Date: May 21st, 2019 12:13 PM Author: Ungodly wagecucks
Casey kind of does four things law geeks care about.
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) |
|
|