anyone familiar with roe v wade?

Question

okay i have to read the roe v wade case.. its extremelyy long... and i have to present the opinions of the court... BUT I CAN NOT USE AN OUTSIDE SOURCE MEANIN NO WIKIPEDIA OR CLIFFNOTES.. MY TEACHER WENT TO LAW SCHOOL SO HE KNOWS THIS CASE BY HARDDD...
SO IF ANY ONE KNOWS THIS CASE OR READ THIS CASE B4 PLEASE HELP ME OUT

Answer 1

Case to legalize abortion.

Roe lied and has admitted she lied.

In A Nutshell:
Roe v. Wade, case decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v. Bolton, this decision legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. The decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun and based on the residual right of privacy, struck down dozens of state antiabortion statutes. The decision was based on two cases, that of an unmarried woman from Texas, where abortion was illegal unless the mother's life was at risk, and that of a poor, married mother of three from Georgia, where state law required permission for an abortion from a panel of doctors and hospital officials. While establishing the right to an abortion, this decision gave states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy to protect the woman and the “potential” life of the unborn child. Denounced by the National Council of Bishops, the decision gave rise to a vocal antiabortion movement that put pressure on the courts and created an anti-Roe litmus test for the judicial appointments of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981–93). In a 1989 case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court, while not striking down Roe, limited its scope, permitting states greater latitude in regulating and restricting abortions. Then in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the abortion rights granted in Roe v. Wade, while permitting further restrictions.

btw: the ruling was not based on law

Answer 2

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). I've read the case. Its required reading in any constitutional law course. You need to read the case yourself. As was stated earlier, your instructor said no cliff notes or wikipedia because he wants you to read the case and summarize it, not regurgitate what someone else wrote about it.

When reading any constitutional case, this is what you need to look for and note:

1) The fact pattern. Generally, the court will summarize the relevant facts upon which the case is based. Otherwise, its opinion could be taken out of context.

2) Read to see the questions which the court is determining... i.e. which constitutional questions are they resolving?

3) Read to see the discussion on how they resolve those questions. Note that generally, unless the case is one of first impression, there will be some quotation of other cases which the author of the opinion feels are relevant and controlling.

4) Note any new decisions of law or new case law created. In the instant case, a substantial expansion of a right of privacy was created. (The controversy continues to this day).

If your teacher went to law school, then I'm certain he read the case. What this means is that you can't get away with BSing your way through it. You're going to have to suck it up and read the case.

Answer 3

Isn't this an outside source?? So if you are willing to cheat by asking here.. why not just get some legal notes!

You are right, its a long case.... and complicated. Some people say its a bad decision but they like the outcome.

Answer 4

Roe v. Wade
Encyclopædia Britannica Article


legal case, decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court, that held unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion to be unconstitutional. In a 7–2 vote the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that a Texas statute criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman's constitutional right of privacy, which the court found implicit in the liberty guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case began in 1970 when Jane Roe (a fictional name used to protect the identity of Norma McCorvey) instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The court disagreed with Roe's assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and attempted to balance a woman's right of privacy with a state's interest in regulating abortion. The court stated that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly “to express the legitimate state interests at stake.” The court then attempted to balance the state's distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state's compelling interest in the pregnant woman's health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to fetuses, the court located that point at “capability for meaningful life outside the mother's womb,” or viability. The court held that the Texas statute was unconstitutional because of its breadth. Repeated challenges since 1973, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), have narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but have yet to overturn it.



To cite this page:
MLA style:
" Roe v. Wade ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 21 Mar. 2007 . APA style:
Roe v. Wade . (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9125053

Answer 5

Okay, we are also considered an outside source. Anyone who gives you any information on here or cites to wikipedia or any other source is an outside source which you cannot use. He told you he does not want you using outside sources because he wants you to learn how to read legal documents and understand them without getting outside help.

Answer 6

nicely on condition that crime grow to be on a comfortable improve long after abortion grew to grow to be an efficient approach of start administration, i might locate your, "respected" source fairly suspect, even previous your ought to qualify it as, "respected". it would besides the shown fact that stand to reason that the death of fifty million destiny leftists might deliver approximately a marked cut back in the cost of increasing crimes in leftist enclaves. unlawful immigration besides the shown fact that has negated any advantageous factors to the alleviation of the toddlers belonging to the backside tier of society. additionally, the speed reductions observed over the final 10 or 15 years got here to be, very all of sudden and as an prompt consequence of hid carry rules in places the place the criminal factor grow to be no longer waiting to understand basically who grow to be armed and who grow to be no longer. crucial deterrent if ever there grow to be one. maximum substantial metropolitan factors found out an instantaneous 23% primary alleviation. BTW, Freakonomics is exceptionally plenty as a techniques far off from a competent and appreciate source that possible probable cite.

Answer 7

it is to long and complicated to teach to you in a nutshell, just read about the case on wikepedia, than close that site and write the things you remember and you will do very well.

Answer 8

Er...since you're supposed to read it and not use an outside source....go read it rather than asking an outside source (us)!

Now, if you have questions on it once you've read it, we'd be happy to help you out.

Answer 9

No never heard of it. What's it about?

Or is that what your teacher wants? Sorry just can't help you before tomorrow's test.

Answer 10

I would love to help you out.. but I cant remember a bloody thing about it...

sorry :)