Re: Abortion rights and laws

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in, I think, 1972.

Re: Abortion rights and laws


No. A law was not passed (enacted) making abortion "legal" (lawful).

Our federal and state governments have three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.

The legislative branch enacts laws. Legislatures do not pass laws to make certain conduct lawful. On the contrary, legislatures enact laws to make certain conduct unlawful. These laws (with the exception of civil infractions and the like) are generally set forth in a criminal code and penalties are established for violations of the law.

The executive branch enforces laws.

The judicial branch interprets the law and applies the law to cases and controversies.

The State of Texas enacted criminal abortion laws that proscribed procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life.

Roe, a pregnant single woman, brought a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the Texas criminal abortion laws. Roe alleged that the criminal law violated her right to privacy (a liberty interest) protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution) against state infringement.

Through the appellate process, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

See ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

The United States Supreme Court did not pass a law. The Court interpreted and applied the SUPREME LAW of the LAND--The U.S. Constitution--to the case and controversy presented.

Accordingly, the Texas criminal abortion laws (and all other similar criminal abortion laws in all the states throughout the land) were declared unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is VOID and cannot be enforced.

so it may not be enforced but you can have them

Several states still have anti-abortion laws in their criminal codes that pre-date Roe v. Wade. Those laws cannot be enforced.

that would be against the 5th or 6th amendment wouldn't it (the one that says that you can't charge some one for doing something that was legal before they made it illegal...or something like that).

You are talking about the prohibition against ex post facto laws (e. g. getting someone for something that wasn't illegal when they were doin' it), which isn't really the same thing. And -- Debra, help me out here, please -- I think that's in the body of the Constitution itself and not one of the Amendments.

Legislative Branch

Article I, Section 9:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Awesome, thank ya.

bsingh5:

Here's a link to the United States Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html


Here's a tidbit of information with respect to your constitutional studies. People often talk about "constitutional rights." But . . . the Constitution does NOT grant or confer rights.

When the people formulated the organization of the federal government through the Constitution, they did so to SECURE the blessings of liberty for themselves and their progeny (you and me). The people retained all their rights, they surrendered nothing.

The people however delegated power to the government to provide for our common defense and welfare, enumerated those delegated powers, and placed limitations on government power.

Accordingly, when you study the Constitution, you will see that the drafters used language to LIMIT government.

See, e.g., First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Accordingly, if someone announces, "I have a First Amendment right to free speech," that person is mischaracterizing the constitution.

The First Amendment does not grant or confer a right to free speech. Freedom of speech is simply a liberty interest (one of many liberty interests) retained by the people when they formed government. The First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from infringing or abriding the rights retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment provides:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And finally, remember that the United States was drafted as a limitation on FEDERAL government, not state government.

It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified that the people had federal constitutional protection against STATE infringements on retained rights.

See the Fourteenth Amendment (1868):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It has taken decades of case by case jurisprudence by the Supreme Court to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment to allow the federal constitution to protect individuals from state deprivations of their rights. It's still an ongoing process.

Roe v. Wade was a landmark case because it recognized that women have a fundamental liberty interest--a right to privacy from governmental interference--protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--to determine their own reproductive destiny.

Would you want to live in a country where a woman did not have the right to control her own body and destiny? Would you want the religious or moral majority that is opposed to premarital sex and birth control to dictate and control the intimate aspects of your personal life under the threat of oppressive criminal laws?

If the Constitution does not SECURE the blessings of individual liberty to each and every one of us, then the purpose for its existence will be negated. Be vigilant. Don't allow your generation and future generations to lose the progress we have finally made in recognizing liberty interests retained by the people from governmental encroachment. Beware the tyranny of the majority who would eviserate your rights in order for them to impose their morals and religious beliefs on you and others through oppressive laws.

That phrase should be printed out, framed and hung on the wall.

but sometimes whe uphold that want for avoiding the opression of our rights that we sometimes just get so carried away that we have lawsuits for the most stupidest (if that's a word which i doubt but...) reasons. for example we women had the 14th amendment but just because it was not enforced we had to ratify the 19th when our right to vote was all ready stated in the 14th! another one is when we bend over backwards to make sure innocent people do not receive mistreatment in prison or not receive due process of the law that any little technicality that happens during the legal process or trial they get off! that is beyond the boundary of protecting our rights and into the area of being rediculous

The Fourteenth Amendment has gone through critical examination and interpretation over the decades. It didn't always secure individual rights from state infringement. It has been a slow interpretative process to give in-depth meaning to the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

On the subject of women's right to vote and the necessity of the Nineteenth Amendment, you might be interested in reading Justice Harlan's dissent in REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/377/533.html

Contrary to the majority opinion, Justice Harlan did not believe that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to voting rights cases. You might be interested in reading the entire case to understand some of the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is not true that accused criminals "get off" based on any little technicality. That's mostly a myth--not a reality.

When reviewing alleged error in criminal prosecutions and convictions, the Courts apply an extremely deferential standard to jury verdicts of guilty. A harmless error analysis is applied: Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.

Basically, if the error would have affected the outcome of the trial, then a conviction will probably be overturned. But, that doesn't mean that the accused simply gets off. He is subject to retrial.

Ah but that minor detail if it had not been overlooked it would not have to be retrialed....also I thought that the overlooking of technicalities rule or law or whatever was just enforced?

Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.

I never said that accused individuals were entitled to a new trial whenever a minor detail is overlooked.

Again, it is not true that alleged criminals "get off" based on any little technicality. If an error occurred that affected an accused person's substantial rights, i.e., the outcome of the trial may have been different if the error had not occurred in that the accused might have been acquitted rather than convicted, THEN the accused is entitled to a new trial.

Ok. Thank you for the breifing. That was very intersting because my professor said the same thing I did (about them getting aquitted on some minor details) and it is not that I do not approve of the system but just that I think that it is much more easier to get off if you are guilty and rich than if you were innocent and poor.

Just because your professor said the same thing that you said, that doesn't make it true. It's merely a conclusion without any facts or circumstances to support the conclusion:

You said:

". . . when we bend over backwards to make sure innocent people do not receive mistreatment in prison or not receive due process of the law that any little technicality that happens during the legal process or trial they get off! that is beyond the boundary of protecting our rights and into the area of being rediculous."

If you provide an example where you believe we bent over backwards to ensure that a criminal defendant was afforded due process to the point of ridiculousness, maybe we can discuss it.

If you can provide an examples where you believe a criminal defendant has "got off" on "any little technicality," I would be interested in hearing about the alleged technicality.

I believe you were misinformed by a conclusory statement that has very little basis in fact or law.

You can't blame rich people for using their personal resources to retain the best attorneys money can buy and to prepare their defense when they are facing criminal charges. They have a clear monetary advantage when it comes to invoking their protected right to effective assistance of counsel.

Looking at the levels of funding, it is clear that most members of society are not interested in appropriately funding public defense programs to provide effective assistance of counsel to the poor. Judicial economy is served when the majority of criminal defendants (guilty or innocent) find it far more prudent to accept a plea bargain rather than risk a conviction at trial. Very seldom does a public defender program have a reputation for excellence and most criminal defendants are aware that very little preparation will be expended in their defense.

And frankly, a jury is more sympathetic to a defendant who presents himself well in court in comparison to other defendants that society inherently views as the scourge of the earth. The fact that members of the jury pool are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a "pillar of society" than they are to others considered "low class" is more indicative of societal perceptions and prejudgment than a bad judicial system.

Most criminal prosecutions are resolved through a plea agreement--only a small percentage of criminal cases are actually tried. The conviction rate is extremely high. Only a small percentage of cases end in an acquittal.

And then, it is extremely rare for a criminal conviction to be overturned on appeal based on a technicality. My extensive review of appellate case law indicates that most convictions are affirmed.

Therefore, if you and your professor have concluded that we -- as a society -- bend over backwards to ensure due process to the point of ridiculousness where criminal defendants are getting off on mere technicalities . . . you are mistaken.

Thank you for the point of view however like you stated "members of the jury pool are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a "pillar of society" than they are to tohers considered "low class" is more indicative of societal preceptions and prejudgment" this shouldnot be happening and would not happen if it was not for the judicial systems....I do not have any of the proof that you ask of but I ask you to look at the psycological evaluations of white collered criminals and the crimes of "low class" people. We have more reason to obstruct their numbers from harming the population than "low class".

There are no laws that state abortion being legal, but yes some states do have anti-abortion laws. I'm not quite for sure if these are really able to be enforced but I'm sure if you really wanted an abortion in that state with the anti-abortion laws you could probably find a clinic that does abortions, just be prepared for rioters. Or you could just travel to the nearby state that performs them with no laws against them.

But I think that if a woman wants to have an abortion that is her choice but a lot of young girls get them and it is just because they 'are too young' or 'they aren't ready', no they just don't know how to keep their legs closed.

Personally the only way that I could see an abortion acceptable is if there are going to be problems during birth, like a death might occur if the baby is born, or if the woman was raped. I know some of my reply changes the subject a little bit but I just had to add that in.