1) Essay Using the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), make the argument for legal formalism (original intent) of the Connecticut law banning contraceptive information or devices. Then make the opposite argument based on legal realism. The case came about when the state Planned Parenthood League opened a clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1961, two staff members, Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, were arrested and fined under a rarely used law for giving advice and a prescription[->0] for a contraceptive[->1] to a married couple. The defendant argued that she had a constitutional right to privacy that was violated by enforcement of the 1879 state law. (Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case.
It was after appeal in 1965 that the Supreme Court finally heard their case, which after the 1943 Tileston v Ullman case that had attempted to make an appeal on the behalf of patient health, and the 1961 Poe v Ullman hearing in which a doctor and his patient sued because the law was unfair but they had not been harmed by the law so they had to dismiss the hearing. (T., G.R.) It was this combination of events that created the perfect legal storm of sorts, which allowed this trial to be heard, unlike the previous cases that attempted to challenge this very issue and had been denied. In a landslide victory, the Supreme Court
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a significant case that illustrates the fine line the federal government walks when trying to protect the privacy of Americans while also trying to uphold Constitutional law. This case made the possession and use of birth control pills illegal. However, the Supreme Court also felt that illegalizing birth control pills would also strip many Americans of their right to privacy because in order to enforce the law the government would have to appear “in bedrooms to find out what went on” (Bartee, 2006). This case would eventually lead to the legalization of birth control pills so that the federal and state governments would no longer be permitted to gain access to the reproductive information and family choices that American citizens made (Bartee,
For example, Anas is a 53-year old woman who is currently working with prisoners who have gone through abortion trauma. Through this she reflects on the pain that her own abortion brought her at 19years old, “But after the procedure, she says, strange feelings washed over her. I remember having evil thoughts, about hurting children, she said. It was like I'd done the worst thing I could possibly do. A piece of evil had entered me.” (Bazelon, 2007) We cannot assume all patients have the same post trauma, this woman may have had a psychological disorder, or received extreme amounts of pressure or stress before encountering her abortion.
Since the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion over 40 years ago, there have been more than 58 million unborn children who have been aborted. Nearly everyone believes that every person has a special moral status such as taking the life of someone else. Pro-life advocates argue that the same is true about abortion, because fetuses are people too. Argumentatively, many pro-choice advocates would argue that fetuses are not people until they reach a certain stage of development. Religious principles hold a much more forceful bias over those who oppose abortion
Terika White Andrew Zboralski ENG 122 February 10, 2013 “Pro-Life Without Choice” In the New York Times article titled “Three Rulings Against Women's Rights” published July 31, 2012 an unnamed author in The Opinion Pages argues that in three separate cases the rights of women were erroneously disregarded. On three different occasions District and Supreme Court judges thought it would be a better idea for women to be withheld their rights just because of their belief of pro-choice, whether in the form of abortion or contraceptives. Although, this has been an ongoing argument since the beginning of time, to date these rights are still protected by the Constitution. Judges are meant to protect this and not make up their own rules along the
In my conclusion I don’t really know where I stand on this issue, I feel the mother has the right to make her own decision but at the same time at what time are you granted your rights, at birth or conception? And what about privacy rights? For example, Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade case was based on a constitutional right to privacy that is not found in the words of the constitution. The Roe v. Wade case was Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or
There are many reasons, most of them being because the parents are not prepared to handle the responsibility of a child, and have conceived an infant by accident. According to Linda Lowen, “4 out of 10 unintended pregnancies end in abortion” (Abortion Facts). This is a large number of 40% of children who get their lives taken away because of a careless mistake of someone who was not prepared to have a child. Statistics show that three of the main reasons for having an abortion are, “3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities; about ¾ say they cannot afford a child; and ½ say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner” (The Alan Guttmacher Institute). These are all reason that could be avoided, and save many lives in the early stages.
Although the act was usually but not always the choice of the woman, abortion was illegal and to end pregnancy was considered to be murder. In the two decades before abortion was legal in America, it's been estimated that about one million women per year underwent illegal abortions. Because these illegal procedures were performed by the woman or someone else who was not medically trained to perform the procedure, women died. In my opinion trying to make abortion illegal is pointless because the women will resort to drastic measures and other means to end the unwanted birth. Here we are in this so-called world of freedom but when we exercise that freedom, we become ridiculed for making a choice.
al., 2002). Therefore, they implemented the Pure Food and Drug Act, which led to the Harrison Act of 1917, and later the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act of 1920, which limited the use of marijuana that was not for medical use only, making the recreational use of the substance legal. Due to crime rated many believed associated with the substance, as many as 17 states implemented regulations that banned all non-medical use of marijuana by the early 1930’s.That by the time the Marijuana Tax Act was enacted in 1937, 36 of the U.S stated already had their own laws that penalized the use, possession and sell of marijuana (Pacula et. al., 2002). So after the amount physicians prescribing medical marijuana tarred off, because of the tedious paper work that had to be completed in order to dispense it.