Abortion has become a hot topic during the 2012 presidential election, invoking strong words from both sides of the aisle. Therefore, it seems pertinent to go back and take a look at how the Supreme Court viewed the issued when it issued its landmark ruling in Roe. v. Wade.
The Facts of the Case
The constitutional abortion challenge was filed on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (“Jane Roe"). The pregnant woman claimed the Texas criminal statute banning all abortions, except for those needed to save the life of the mother, violated her constitutional rights.
Roe specifically alleged that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions," but that she was unable to get a “legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy. In addition, she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.
The lawsuit alleged that the Texas abortion statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they violated a woman’s right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Roe purported to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court began its opinion by acknowledging that it understood the significance of its opinion and the divergent views on abortion. “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," the opinion states.
With regard to the legal issues presented, the Court agreed that the Texas abortion law was unconstitutional, as it violated the right to privacy embodied in the Constitution’s First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Citing a long list of cases, the Court concluded that the “zone of privacy" guaranteed by the Constitution is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The majority, however, concluded that the right to privacy was not absolute. It also recognized that the state has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life. It further reasoned that “[each of the interests] grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term." It is this part of the decision that allows states to enact more restrictive abortion rules for later phases of pregnancy.
What’s Next?
Even though Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the legality of abortion remains as divisive as ever, with many calling for the Supreme Court or Congress to again revisit the issue.
I already know the answer to this question, but my husbands' coworker won't believe it until he sees it in black and white. Michael's mother is an only child and stands to inherit a lot from her mother. My husband James says "Grandma can leave her stuff to anyone in the world she wants to, excluding her only child and all grandchildren too, if she wants too." Michael insists that only she can and will inherit her mother's estate and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. Not even a will stating that she wants to leave it to someone else would keep her from it.......
So, just to settle this silly arguement, who's right?
On what legal grounds can a medical network dismiss a permanently disabled adult female, who suffers with neurological (phyisical and emotional) difficulties, as well as, other medical disorders be dismissed from a medical network?
I was see doctors and specialists that accept my insurance. I have never lost my health plans. I do not owe the medical network any moneys.
Since being dismissed from the medical networks and with my disabilities, it has been difficult for me to fine new doctors and specialists, because of my disabilities.
The physicians medical networks in the Catholic Health System, should be held to the same high standards as the Catholic hospitals. It was medical networks in the Catholic Health that I prefer receiving my healthcare from. I did nothing wrong to warrant be treated like this by the medical networks dismissing me.