Case Briefs- Civil and Constitutional Law Part 2

The interest of the owners of the shopping center is

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: law was no longer necessary. o Texas argued that the unborn baby was a 'person' as defined by the Constitution and was thus entitled to constitutional protections. However, the Court noted that abortion rights were much more liberal when the Constitution was written, implying that the Founders did not include the unborn in their definition of 'person'. The Court noted that under the historical common- law, 'life' was considered to begin at the quickening (the time when the baby's heart can be felt beating). o The Court found that the right of personal privacy includes abortion decisions, but that the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important State interests in regulation. The Court found that the tipping point for State interest was when the fetus was 'viable'. This case was an attempt of the State to balance the privacy rights of the mother with the State's responsibility to protect the baby. o Initially, the balance is in favor of the mother's right to privacy, but as the pregnancy continues and the baby develops, the balance tips in favor of the State's responsibility to protect the baby. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), which held that the State has an interest to protect the unborn baby, but that interest must be balanced against the privacy rights of the mother. o The Federal Constitution does not explicitly have a right to privacy, but the Supreme Court found a right by combining several constitutional amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)). Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (Freedom of speech & expr...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online