Privacy at Issue: the US Supreme Court's Abortion Cases Jesseca Holcomb PSC 499 November 28, 2007

Privacy at Issue: the US Supreme Court's Abortion Cases

Jesseca HolcombPSC 499

November 28, 2007

The History of American The History of American GovernmentGovernment

The Declaration of IndependenceThe Declaration of Independence The U.S. ConstitutionThe U.S. Constitution English “common law”English “common law” The State Supreme Court vs. Federal The State Supreme Court vs. Federal

Supreme CourtSupreme Court

Natural Law vs. Natural Natural Law vs. Natural RightsRights

The concept of natural law was to clearly The concept of natural law was to clearly define the powers of the new define the powers of the new independent nation that was equal to independent nation that was equal to England.England.

The concept of natural rights was used to The concept of natural rights was used to clearly define the line between powers of clearly define the line between powers of the government and the rights of citizensthe government and the rights of citizens

Both concepts are simultaneously Both concepts are simultaneously expressed within the text of the expressed within the text of the Declaration of Independence.Declaration of Independence.

Philosophers’ theoriesPhilosophers’ theories John LockeJohn Locke MontesquieuMontesquieu RousseauRousseau John Stuart MillJohn Stuart Mill Jeremy BenthamJeremy Bentham

Are some rights Are some rights implied within the Bill implied within the Bill

of Rights?of Rights?Are some rights implied within the Bill of Rights?

Right of PrivacyRight of Privacy Why is it important to Americans?Why is it important to Americans? It is not specifically mentioned within It is not specifically mentioned within

the Constitutionthe Constitution Is it an “implied” rightIs it an “implied” right

Views of Privacy Based on the Views of Privacy Based on the ConstitutionConstitution

The Bill of Rights can be view as The Bill of Rights can be view as exclusive.exclusive.

The Constitution can be thought of as a The Constitution can be thought of as a “living” document which is always “living” document which is always changing with the passing of time.changing with the passing of time.

A combination of both where there is a A combination of both where there is a recognition of privacy as a right and recognition of privacy as a right and the dedication to allowing state the dedication to allowing state regulations to continue.regulations to continue.

Personal Right of Privacy cases that were brought

before the U.S. Supreme Court

Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)(1965)

HistoryHistory– Griswold and Buxton violated two Griswold and Buxton violated two

Connecticut lawsConnecticut laws The opinion of the Court reversed the The opinion of the Court reversed the

State court’s decision was reversed State court’s decision was reversed on the basis of marital right of privacyon the basis of marital right of privacy

– Guaranteed within the Ninth and the Guaranteed within the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendments and the Fourteenth Amendments and the prenumbras of the Bill of Rightsprenumbras of the Bill of Rights

Roe v. Wade (1973)Roe v. Wade (1973) HistoryHistory

– Anonymous pregnant, single woman was Anonymous pregnant, single woman was prevented from obtaining an abortion under prevented from obtaining an abortion under Texas law.Texas law.

The Court recognizes that a right of The Court recognizes that a right of personal privacy does exist within the personal privacy does exist within the “zones of privacy” under the Constitution“zones of privacy” under the Constitution– Founded in the Fourteenth and the Ninth Founded in the Fourteenth and the Ninth

Amendment.Amendment.

Maher v. Roe (1977)Maher v. Roe (1977) HistoryHistory

– A Connecticut regulation restricted federal A Connecticut regulation restricted federal funding for abortions passed the “first funding for abortions passed the “first trimester.”trimester.”

Majority opinion determined that the Majority opinion determined that the Connecticut regulation was not Connecticut regulation was not unconstitutionalunconstitutional– The ability to have an abortion is still The ability to have an abortion is still

possible, but only through means of private possible, but only through means of private funding.funding.

Akron v. Akron Center of Akron v. Akron Center of Reproductive Health (1983)Reproductive Health (1983)

HistoryHistory– The City of Akron attempted to regulate The City of Akron attempted to regulate

abortion clinics.abortion clinics. The majority opinion felt that The majority opinion felt that

regulations of this sort were regulations of this sort were unnecessary and served no unnecessary and served no legitimate purpose in supporting the legitimate purpose in supporting the city’s interests.city’s interests.– The concept of “unduly burdensome” The concept of “unduly burdensome”

developed by Justice O’Connordeveloped by Justice O’Connor

Thornburgh v. American College of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Obstetricians and Gynecologists

(1986)(1986) HistoryHistory

– A Pennsylvania statute required the doctor A Pennsylvania statute required the doctor to provide information concerning risks and to provide information concerning risks and alternatives to abortions while providing alternatives to abortions while providing reports to the state and have another reports to the state and have another physician present during the abortionphysician present during the abortion

The majority of the Court felt that the The majority of the Court felt that the regulations in this case interfered with regulations in this case interfered with a woman’s right to an abortion.a woman’s right to an abortion.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)Services (1989)

HistoryHistory– The state of Missouri forbade the use of The state of Missouri forbade the use of

public employees and facilities for the public employees and facilities for the performance of nontherapeutic performance of nontherapeutic abortions.abortions.

The majority opinion found that The majority opinion found that Missouri’s view of abortion was not Missouri’s view of abortion was not unconstitutional.unconstitutional.

Planned Parenthood of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Pennsylvania v.

Casey (1992)Casey (1992) HistoryHistory

– Pennsylvania law required informed consent with Pennsylvania law required informed consent with provisions for emergencies, parental or guardian provisions for emergencies, parental or guardian consent, and a collection of patient information.consent, and a collection of patient information.

The majority opinion concluded that the The majority opinion concluded that the Pennsylvania laws were not unconstitutional, Pennsylvania laws were not unconstitutional, except for the spousal notification.except for the spousal notification.– This decision overturned the previous ruling in This decision overturned the previous ruling in

Akron and ThornburghAkron and Thornburgh

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) HistoryHistory

– Nebraska law banned partial birth Nebraska law banned partial birth abortions, also known as dilation and abortions, also known as dilation and extraction (D&X)extraction (D&X)

The majority opinion determined that The majority opinion determined that the statute violated the decision in the statute violated the decision in Casey because the language could be Casey because the language could be reasonably interpreted to ban activities reasonably interpreted to ban activities other than D&X abortion proceduresother than D&X abortion procedures

What is the public’s opinion?

Public OpinionPublic Opinion

Public OpinionPublic OpinionATTITUDES TOWARD ROE V. WADE – BY PARTY ID

Total2007

Party ID

Republican Democrat Independent

2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006

% % % % % % %

Favor 56 45 37 63 55 61 56

Oppose 40 51 61 33 43 36 37

Not sure / refused 4 5 2 5 2 3 8

ConclusionConclusion Privacy will continue to be an issue Privacy will continue to be an issue

because it is an unwritten law.because it is an unwritten law. The Supreme Court rulings have show to The Supreme Court rulings have show to

be inconsistent.be inconsistent. They also showed to be inconsistent when They also showed to be inconsistent when

it came to the importance of determining it came to the importance of determining when life begins.when life begins.

Because of the inconsistencies, it is Because of the inconsistencies, it is impossible to predict the future for the impossible to predict the future for the right of privacy or the governmental right of privacy or the governmental leniencies for compelling state’s interest.leniencies for compelling state’s interest.

Selected ReferencesSelected References Johnson, John. 2005. Johnson, John. 2005. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth

Control and the Constitutional Right of PrivacyControl and the Constitutional Right of Privacy. . Judges, Donald. 1993. Judges, Donald. 1993. Hard Choices, Lost Voices; Hard Choices, Lost Voices;

How the Abortion Conflict Has Divided America, How the Abortion Conflict Has Divided America, Distorted Constitutional Rights, and Damaged the Distorted Constitutional Rights, and Damaged the Courts.Courts.

McWhirter, Darien, and Jon Bible. 1992. McWhirter, Darien, and Jon Bible. 1992. Privacy as a Privacy as a Constitutional Right: Sex, Drugs, and the Right to Constitutional Right: Sex, Drugs, and the Right to LifeLife. .

Sullivan, Kathleen, and Gerald Gunther. 2004. Sullivan, Kathleen, and Gerald Gunther. 2004. Constitutional Law (15th Ed.). Constitutional Law (15th Ed.).

Vile, John. 1997. Vile, John. 1997. A Companion to the United States A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. (2nd Ed.)Constitution and Its Amendments. (2nd Ed.)..