RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Roe v. Wade (1973)  

 Facts of the Case: Norma McCorvey (or “Jane Roe”), a pregnant single woman, claimed that her pregnancy was the consequence of rape. She was denied an abortion by the laws of the state of Texas, and the case, called Roe v. Wade, was taken to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution give women a right to terminate their pregnancy by abortion? Ms. Roe challenged the Texas law on the grounds that the law violated her right of personal liberty given in the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to privacy protected by the Bill of Rights.

Decision: The court stated that most American laws against abortion violated the right to privacy established in Griswold and Eisenstadt. It overturned all federal and state laws that banned abortion in the United States during the first trimester of pregnancy. Also, even after the fetus is “viable”, the ruling said that an abortion must be available to women whose health is in danger- restrictions may be in place, but an abortion cannot be impossible to obtain. Roe established that a woman’s right to an abortion was part of the zone of privacy and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. SC decided that states could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances but otherwise women did have a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

 Facts of the Case: Michael Hardwick was arrested in Georgia after being seen by a police officer while engaging in consensual acts of homosexual sodomy. Sodomy was criminally illegal under a Georgia Statute.

 Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution give homosexuals a right to consensual acts of sodomy, thereby invalidating many state laws criminaliing such acts?

 Supreme Court Decision: The court ruled that the Constitution did not protect acts of hoosexual sodomy, being that they do not meet the criteria for "implicit rights" in the Constitution. 5-4 decision.

Lawrence (and Garner) v. Texas (2003)

Facts of The Case: Houston police, responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private area, entered the apartment of John Lawrence and witnessed him and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in private, consensual sexual acts. The two were arrested for violating the Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex from engaging in certain intimate sexual content. (the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186)

Constitutional Question: Does the arrest and conviction of Lawrence & Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" Law, which criminalizes two people of the same sex for engaging in sexual acts but not two people of different sexs for engaging in the same sexual acts, violate the two same sex individuals rights under the Fourteenth Amendment guarentee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?

Decision: No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that making it against the law for two consenting adults to engage in same-sex sexual conduct violated the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Facts of Case: Missouri enacted legislation to put limits on abortion. Public employees and facilities were not to be used for abortions unless it was harmful to the others health, encouragement and counseling were forbidden, and physicians were to give viability tests to women in their twentieth week of pregnancy.

 Constitutional Question: Did this infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

 Decision: None of the provisions were unconstitutional. The preamble was not applied to the case of abortions and therefore was in void. Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion. No former case existed to counsel the provision of law. Viability tests were upheld stating that States interest in protecting potential life came into existence before the point of viability.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

Facts of Case: New PA abortion laws instituted in 1988-89 required parental consent for a minor, spousal consent for a married woman, and a 24 hour waiting period for those seeking abortions.

Constitutional Question: Does requiring a woman seeking an abortion to follow these provisions infringe on her right to an abortion as provided in Roe v. Wade?

Decision: No, these provisions do not violate Roe v. Wade except requiring a woman to acquire spousal consent. In a 5-4 decision the Court upheld all of the provisions except spousal consent on the basis of an "undue burden" requirement.