Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. More on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&tag=mg03-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=7e1f3f3b49a4eebefe522570108d2cf9&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=books&keywords=roe%20wade
Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe’s trimester framework, while affirming Roe’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”, adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
According to the Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” In 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900. In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime, though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have “roots in the English common-law tradition.”
Prior history of the case
In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)
In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped. “Rape” is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.
The district court ruled in McCorvey’s favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion. The district court’s decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, finding in the decision for a right to privacy.
Video Rating: / 5
“A police officer can’t pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.
In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the “ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity.”
John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection in St. Johnsville, N.Y. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York’s disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.”
Read More Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/flip-off-police_n_2403563.html
Ana Kasparian (http://www.twitter.com/anakasparian) and Dave Rubin (http://www.twitter.com/rubinreport) of The Young Turks discuss.
Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
Police Shooting, Flipping The Bird, E-Cigs & Parking Dispute – The Young Turks 1/21/2015 Social Commentary
Support TYT while shopping on Amazon through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theyoungturks-20
The Largest Online News Show in the World. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.
Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party. 2. Young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Download audio and video of the full two hour show on-demand + the members-only post game show by becoming a member at http://www.tytnetwork.com/subscribe/. Your membership supports the day to day operations and is vital for our continued success and growth.
Join The Young Turks Network mailing list https://www.tytnetwork.com/newsletter/
or Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?sub_confirmation=1
Like Us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks
Follow Us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Get your TYT Merch: http://shoptyt.com
Get REVIVAL, out now: http://smarturl.it/sgrevival
Get exclusive REVIVAL merchandise bundles: http://smarturl.it/sgrevivald2c
Sign up for updates: https://www.selenagomez.com/mailing-list
The Chicago Bar Association Young Lawyers Section, in partnership with The Chicago Bar Foundation and Illinois Legal Aid Online, has developed a series of short videos on basic, civil procedures in Illinois. The Chicago Bar Foundation provided funding for the project; Illinois Legal Aid Online produced the series. More information on Illinois civil procedure is available at www.IllinoisLegalAid.org.
A short video on what happens if you miss a court date.
Chairman Geoffrey Buckingham tells us why APCI supports the Save UK Justice campaign and talks about the changes to the interpreting service.
Follow us on twitter @legal_aid_watch https://twitter.com/legal_aid_watch
Video Rating: / 5
For more information call Legal Aid Society of Hawaii at 808-536-4302 or visit http://www.legalaidhawaii.org
For more information, visit:
The Hawaii State Judiciary website at http://www.courts.state.hi.us/self-help/landlord/tenant_claims.html
For online court forms click here: http://www.lawhelp.org/hi/resource/hawaii-self-help-interactive-forms
Attorneys, Judges, and Court Personnel as First-Responders: Strategies to Identify and Mitigate Trauma Among Veteran Participants with PTSD and Operational Stress Injuries in Veterans Treatment Court Settings – Forensic stress, which is generated solely by involvement in the criminal litigation, often aggravates symptoms of existing mental health conditions for veterans facing charges. It impairs the defendant’s abilities to make reasoned legal decisions and challenges attorneys and other professionals in the justice system to identify and counteract these powerful forces. This Webinar describes methods to assist attorneys and other members of a treatment team in diverting the client from his or her own symptoms – not only from confinement. It also identifies some risks inherent in the professional’s exposure to a Veteran’s own traumatic experiences.
For all participants, the Webinar introduces the concept of “Psycholegal Softspots” as particular aspects of criminal litigation that are known to trigger stress reactions, explores “Psychological First Aid” as a vehicle to mitigate crises, and discusses PTSD trigger awareness plans as practical tools tailored meet an individual participant’s unique needs in a Veterans Treatment Court program. For attorneys, the Webinar also previews ethically acceptable interventions that do not transform the lawyer into a mental health professional and identifies the hallmarks of effective collaboration with mental health professionals during the course of the representation.
Major Seamone is a Professor and Director of the Legal Writing Program at Mississippi College School of Law. He also serves as a Major and Senior Defense Counsel in the United States Army Reserve. During his tours in Iraq, Germany, and at domestic military installations, he participated as both a prosecutor and defense attorney in sexual assault, complex death penalty, and other felony criminal cases involving defendants with PTSD. Major Seamone has written extensively about treatment-based sentencing alternatives in military courts-martial proceedings and the use of civilian Veterans Treatment and Mental Health Problem-Solving Courts by military organizations and commanders. He is actively involved in the development of a standardized curriculum to assist family court judges in better understanding the unique needs of military families.
University of Chicago Law School Students spent their 2012 spring break providing legal assistance in Biloxi, Mississippi.