Exam 1 Flashcards
(34 cards)
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt ( Majority)
Two provisions of a Texas House Bill are being looked at under Planned Parenthood v Casey to see if they violate a woman’s right to a previable abortion
Medical provisions are not sufficient enough to justify the burdens; 30 miles and ambulatory center requirements caused clinics to shut down and created an UNDUE BURDEN
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (concurring)
Other procedures related to pregnancy and childbirth are not subjected to ambulatory regulations
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (Dissent)
There are different rules for different rights; undue burden test is re-written in three ways….
o requires courts to consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access all together with the benefits those laws confer,
o when law’s justification is uncertain, they need not to defer to legislature but must assess medical justifications for abortion restriction by scrutinizing the record themselves
o even if a law poses no substantial obstacle, the law must have more than reasonable relation to a legitimate state interests.
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization( Majority)
A Mississippi law prohibited abortions after 15 weeks even though this is well before the point of viability.
There is no reference to the right to an abortion in the constitution nor is it deeply rooted in the nation’s history. The Casey plurality went beyond the court’s role in the constitution; the STATES should determine how abortions are handled; also privacy is linked to abortion which both aren’t in the constitution
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (concurring)
There is no constitutional right to abortion, and due process only guarantees the process and not certain rights, so the government can infringe on certain rights–> Obergaphell, Griswald, Lawrence, Bowers any cases that have right to privacy the courts will have to look at again
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dissent)
The constitution is a living document and should change, as mentioned by Chief Justice John Marshall; men who ratified the amendment did not have concern of reproductive rights; there’s no reason to change the rulings of Casey and Roe, only the courts change
Reed v Reed (majority): An Idaho statue is challenged by a mother whose child died. The statute claims that when a person dies intestate, a male is preferred over a female, to take over the estate of said person. Equal Protection
The probate judge considered himself bound by statute; he did not take the time to consider the mothers capabilities
The courts were attempting to reduce their workload and hearings which is an arbitrary legislative choice
Frontiero v. Richardson (Majority): The court is looking at a federal military statute in which a man can claim his wife as a dependent for increased federal benefits. The appellant is attempting to claim her husband as a dependent, but it has been deemed that she needs proof of the husband’s dependency on her.
Sex characteristics do not determine one’s ability to perform or contribute to society
Civil rights act of 1964 declared that no employer, labor union, or other organization shall discriminate against any individual on the bases of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Congress may have reasonably concluded that it is cheaper and easier to say that women are financially dependent on their husbands
“The constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency”
Frontiero v. Richardson (concurring)
Reed v Reed did not ass sex to the narrowly limited group of classifications which are inherently suspect
The Equal Rights Amendment has been sent out to ratification of the states, and by making this decision it is interrupting the legislative process
Frontiero v. Richardson (dissenting)
Written by William H. Rehnquist, and he affirmed the lower courts decision
Craig v. Boren (Majority)
Appellant Craig appealed the district court when the three judges sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action. He claims that the statute discriminates against men between the ages of 18 and 20.
Various studies have shown that men are more likely to drink and drive; they also proved that men are overrepresented among those killed or injured in traffic incidents this is weak evidence as only 2% of males have this issue
Sex is not a legitimate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving
Craig v. Boren (concurring)
Difficult to believe that the statute was created to cope with the problem of traffic safety does not actually prohibit consumption
This data claims that 18–20-year-old men are inferior to women
Craig v. Boren (dissenting)
“rational basis” under the equal protection analysis
Males are in no way disadvantaged or facing systematic discrimination
3.2% beer is not fundamental in the constitution to invoke strict scrutiny
How does the court determine what objectives are important?
Waterhouse v Hopkins (Majority)
Ann Hopkins was a senior manager in the office of Price Waterhouse and was denied partnership which led her to sue Price Waterhouse under title VII.
Hopkins played a major role in securing the 25-million-dollar contract; she was also aggressive at times with her coworkers
Hopkins was put on hold to improve on walking more femininely, talk more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry
Agreed with district court except it held that even if a plaintiff proves that discrimination played a role in an employment decision, the defendant will not be liable if it proves that it would have made the same decision in the absence of discrimination
Waterhouse v Hopkins (Dissenting)
Title VII creates no independent cause of action for sex stereotyping
The question is whether discrimination caused the Plaintiff’s harm?
“Neither do they create the duty to sensitize”
Harris v Forklift Systems Inc (majority)
Teresa Harris worked for Forklift Systems inc., and she experienced sexual innuendos and comments from the president Charles Hardy. Teresa claims that Hardy created a hostile work environment because of her gender. TITLE VII
Title VII statute is not limited to conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s wellbeing
As long as the environment is deemed to be hostile, there is no need for it to be psychologically injurious
Used Meritor v Vinson “ plaintiff may establish a violation under title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile work environment”
Harris v Forklift Systems Inc ( concurring)
The word hostile is vague
Meritor’s interpretation of the term “ conditions of employment” determines whether working conditions have been discriminatorily altered “ I know no test more faithful to the inherently vague statutory language than the one the court adopts today”
Sexual harassment made it more difficult to do the job “productivity declined due to harassment”
EEOC v Madison Community Unit School District NO.12 (majority) The case was brought by the EEOC against the school district of Madison, Illinois, charging the district with paying female athletic coaches less than male coaches, which violates Equal Pay act of 1993
The EPA requires jobs to be similar not the same
There is no way of telling that both jobs require the same amount of effort
Difference of “customers” doesn’t justify unequal pay
Roe v Wade(Majority)
Texas made it a felony to get terminate a fetus unless there was medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Out of the three plaintiffs, Jane Roe was the only one deemed to be able to sue, and she claimed that the statute violated multiple rights.
The court does not believe that a woman can get rid of her baby whenever
“The privacy right involved, cannot be said to be absolute”
“person” does not mean unborn under the 14th amendment
By adopting a theory of life, Texas may NOT override the rights of pregnant women
The statute is broad and is not specific as to what time an abortion can be made
Roe v Wade (Concurring)
The statute is overboard because it equates embryonic life after conception with the worth of life immediately before birth
Roe v Wade (Dissent)
The court is making a decision that is nowhere stated in the constitution
The court decision is more like legislation
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Majority)
Pennsylvania abortion law was amended to require women to wait 24 hours, notify a parent (if one is a minor) or a spouse before being eligible to terminate a pregnancy
The constitution does not forbid a state from having a preference
24 hour waiting period and requirement to tell the spouse are burdensome and work against a woman
Court finds that only on provision fails this yest; the husband notification
Undue Burden test- “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability”
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (concurring)
Restrictions on abortion violate a woman’s right to privacy
The state requires women to continue a pregnancy that they may not want and the state does not compensate them
Women should not have to report
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (dissent)
The question is not whether the power of a woman to abort her child is a liberty; rather it is if the liberty is protected under the constitution
The liberty is not protected
some of the judges are being influenced by the political pressure
