Author: Jone Lewis

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision – Justice Douglas, Concurring

For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision Post: MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring * While I join the opinion of the Court,1 I add a few words. I The questions presented in the present cases go far beyond the issues of vagueness, which we considered in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62. They involve the right of privacy, one aspect of which we considered in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, when we held that various guarantees in the Bill of Rights create zones of privacy. 2 [410 U.S. 210] The Griswold case involved a law forbidding the use of contraceptives. We held that law as applied to married people unconstitutional: “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Id. at 486. The District Court in Doe held that Griswold and related cases “establish a Constitutional right to privacy broad enough to encompass the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in its early stages, by obtaining an abortion.” 319 F.Supp. 1048, 1054. The Supreme Court of California expressed the same view in People v. Belous, 3 71 Cal.2d 954, 963, 458 P.2d 194, 199. The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of...

Read More

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision

For easier reading online, you’ll find the sections of the original Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision here: Preface Majority Opinion by Justice Blackman Justice Stewart Concurring Opinion Justice Rehnquist, Dissenting Opinion Justice Burger, Concurring Opinion Justice Douglas, Concurring Opinion Justice White, Dissenting...

Read More

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision – Justice White, Dissenting

For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision Post: MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.* At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure. The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother. With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment....

Read More

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision – Justice Rehnquist, Dissenting

For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. The Court’s opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent. I The Court’s opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her law-suit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The Court’s statement of facts in this case makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed. Nothing in the Court’s opinion indicates that Texas...

Read More

Roe v. Wade – Majority Opinion by Justice Blackman

For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue. We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem. Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to...

Read More

Roe v. Wade – Original Decision – Preface

The following is the preface of the Supreme Court decision known as Roe v. Wade. For the entire text, see: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. U.S. Supreme Court ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) 410 U.S. 113 ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 70-18. Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973 A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife’s health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs‘ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does’ complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this...

Read More

Theodora

Dates: ? – 928 Occupation: senatrix and serenissima vestaratrix of Rome Known for: grandmother of Pope John XI; her influence and that of her daughters was called the Rule of the Harlots or the pornocracy Marriage, Children: husband: Theophylact daughter: Marozia daughter: Theodora (confused by historian Edward Gibon with her mother) rumored to be the mistress of Pope John X and Pope Sergius III About Theodora Theodora and her husband Theophylact were key influences during the papacies of Sergius III and Anastasius III. Later stories associated Sergius III with Marozia, daughter of Theophylact and Theodora, and claim that the future Pope John XI was their illegitimate son, born when Marozia was only 15 years old. When John X was elected Pope it was also with the support of Theodora and Theophylact. Some stories claim that John X and Theodora were lovers. An example of some historians’ judgment of Theodora and Marozia: Towards the beginning of the tenth century a powerful noble, Theophylact, aided by his beautiful and unscrupulous wife, Theodora, secured control of Rome. Their daughter Marozia became the central figure of a corrupt society which completely dominated both the city and the papacy. Marozia herself married as her third husband Hugh of Provence, then king of Italy. One of her sons became pope as John XI ( 931-936), while another, Alberic, assumed the title of “prince and senator of the...

Read More

Requirements for Women in the Nursing Service

The following is a document written by Dorothea Dix to lay out the requirements for women who would work in the nursing service for the Union Army during the American Civil War. Circular No. 8., by Dorothea Dix Washington, D. C., July 14, 1862, No candidate for service in the Women’s Department for nursing in the Military Hospitals of the United States, will be received below the age of thirty-five years, nor above fifty. Only women of strong health, not subjects of chronic disease, nor liable to sudden illnesses, need apply. The duties of the station make large and continued demands on strength. Matronly persons of experience, good conduct, or superior education and serious disposition, will always have preference; habits of neatness, order, sobriety, and industry, are prerequisites. All applicants must present certificates of qualification and good character from at least two persons of trust, testifying to morality, integrity, seriousness, and capacity for care of the sick. Obedience to rules of the service, and conformity to special regulations, will be required and enforced. Compensation, as regulated by act of Congress, forty cents a day and subsistence. Transportation furnished to and from the place of service. Amount of luggage limited within small compass. Dress plain, (colors brown, grey, or black,) and while connected with the service without ornaments of any sort. No applicants accepted for less than three months service;...

Read More

Pin It on Pinterest