Planned Parenthood V. Wade Summary

Words: 1007
Pages: 5

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia. Dred Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson. After his owner died, the ownership reassigned to his wife Eliza Irene Emerson. Scott decided to sue her to gain their freedom. He claimed that because they had lived in a free state and territory where slavery was prohibited, they were truly already free. Supreme Court decision stated that slaves were not citizens. Just living in a free state or territory, even if it was for years, did not free slaves. Supreme court declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
Justice Taney wrote that Scott was not a free man for two main reason, first being that he had no right to sue in federal court because of him being African American, was not a citizen and second
…show more content…
How is the right to privacy derived from the Constitution in Roe v. Wade? How is the right to an abortion derived from the Constitution in Roe v. Wade? Is this derivation sufficient for the legitimate use of judicial review? What limits, if any, are there to such a right according to Roe v. Wade? In Planned Parenthood v. Casey what is Justice O’Conner’s reasoning for upholding Roe v. Wade? What part of the Constitution does she argue protects the right to abortion? What part of the Constitution does she argue protects the right to abortion? Consider in your answer her concern for stare decisis. Why does she discuss stare decisis at such length? What new standard does she set for deciding whether any restriction on the right to abortion is …show more content…
Strict scrutiny requires the law to be narrowly tailored and serve a government interest. So in order to restrict abortion, the compelling government interest according to Roe v. Wade is to protect the mother and the compelling point where the protection of mother allows the state to restrict abortion after the end of the first trimester, and viability of pregnancy (meaningful life outside of mother’s womb). In regards to the third trimester, the state has obtained a compelling interest, which would terminate the woman’s right to privacy and rationalize rigorous guideline even to the degree of prohibiting Abortions as it clearly poses threat to the health of the mother. Legal interference in the first trimester cannot be taken against the right to privacy and right to abortion. After the end of the first trimester, States may make medical administration. From the time of viability (meaningful life outside of a mother’s womb) around the end of the second trimesters states may forbid abortion especially when the continued pregnancy compromises the mother’s life or