final Flashcards Preview

american national gov > final > Flashcards

Flashcards in final Deck (191):

what helps change attitudes about religous tolerance between denominations

John Locke makes many strong arguments after being contacted by an associate about his thoughts on religious tolerance


Locke's arguments on religious tolerance

1. if you distill christianity to its elemental component, its toleration. He says when we talks about other people's rituals are wrong, it is basically men seeking power.


why were so many people persecuting in the name of religions

for the glory of God, salvation of souls, and love


what was the justification for persecution?

if youve tried everything else and they wont accept religious then they saw it better to kill them before they sin more


Locke's proof on why he thought Christians were not sincere

many christians were just as bad as sinners and they should be persecuted too. their persecution showed they desired power


how much should state's role have in saving your soul?

purpose of commonwealth: procure, preserve, advance, civil interests


what are civil interests?

life, liberty, health, body, possession of property, leaving off anything to do with metaphysics, religion, living a good life, that is left to the individual, not a civil interest.


3 principle arguments why states can not take part in salvation of souls

1. authority : state has no authority from God to save souls
2. doesn't have the power: if it doesnt have the authority, it doesnt have the power, also cant know whether if there is an inside change of heart
3. God has not shown the sole way of getting to heaven: this is a danger to allow states to choose religion, if they are wrong, they are condemning everyone to hell. leave it to a persons own conscience, also argument for sep of church and state


what happens if conversion is forced

you cannot force someone into your faith, it doesnt work.


what matters the most about religion

that it has an inward sincerity and when conercion begins, it stops.


locke's view of toleration raised questions of

if churches were necessary, it weakened and domesticated religion.


what group do we not have to tolerate according to locke and why?

athiests, we dont care what you believe, as long as you believe something. locke is limited government supporter and doesnt want athiests bc they would require a coersive government and ensure people arent breaking the law, religion gives morals so that we dont need stronger government.


where locke leaves us concerning religion in society:

no favorable view of religion overall


tocqueville's view of religion

very important part of society


tocqueville reason for being in US

went to study prison techniques in america, prisoners spent time farming and when they weren't, they were reading the bible or being taught the bible to implicate moral values and the reoffense rate was very low after leaving, after seeing USA he believed one day that all countries would be a democratic society


tocqueville view on jamestown

we should despise them, compared them to pirates, exploited others, trampled everything in their way, very similiar to french Aristocrats who were lazy, arrogant, and haughty, they didnt produce anything that resembled gratness


tocqueville view on puritans

took religious teachings seriously, came to escape relgious persecution, hightly educated, thought rationally, had oppurtunity to participate, upper middle class, gave up a lot to follow religious yearnings and risked everything


tocqueville reason why puritans put emphasis on education

to read the bible and be a conductive, contributer to the community, american love of equality and democracy springs from puritan roots


tocqueville view of what puritans accomplished

liberty and religion coexisted peacefully, gave us a model of how that looks like


tocqueville meaning when he said "religion is the cradle of liberty"

cradle: rearing of children, feeding, clothing, nurturing, defending it,
defense: puritans have unlimited ability, religion narrows pt of biews, some things will be ruled off limits bc theyre wrong, taught by religion
nurture: liberty is not only good if its excercised, ensured to use it: religion is a developing relationship w God, giving you a sense of significance


Locke vs tocqueville

L wants to limit religion and tocqueville thinks it plays a significant role in liberty


problems with political parties

1. not found in the constitution
2. parties generally have a bad rep
3. americans are so removed from when parties were strong


politcal parties

an association of citizens with a shared political purpose that recruits and supports candidates for office under a common label with expectation these persons have elected will work to promote the associations goals


why did founders not want political parties?

1. thought parties were factions
- party and faction were used interchangably in Fed 10
2. worried parties would interfere with sep of powers
3. parties would interfere with the system of reps
represents those that put one into office: only serve members of political party


founders needed a substitute for political parties

main roles of them are for performing nominations of putting people in office, the constituion was their substitute, senate-> pres-> electoral college


why we need political parties

1. parties are necessary
2. democratic politics dont work w out parties
whatever the case, we end up with 2 parties


first parties

1. federalists - hamiltons ideas
2. democratic- republican party: madisons idea


jefferson's thoughts on why feds had success

1. cunning works of Alex Ham -- people bought into him
2. George wash -- all important matters were sided with alex ham


what happens when feds are voted out of office

lose congress, etc, jefferson comes into power. they set up with the idea of no political parties


what kind of impact was made with the feds?

the feds voluntarily gave up power with no violence, picked up, and left. left behind: when party is voted out, leave, peaceful, reorganzed, and fought for the spot again.


jeffersonian era

saw political parties as a temporary organization in response to a national threat, and once the fed threat would subside, they would go to a non-partisian system. but eventually people foudn that the parties were useful


why did people think political parties were useful in the jeffersonian era

1. they became dominant way congress is organized.
2. party caucus- becomes body that chooses who is going to serve on committees, house/speaker, etc
parties eased the process of governing, make things more efficent, allowing them to stick around


what happened to the federalists

called for a convention, demanded immediate hostation of british, New england states were succeeding from the union if they didnt get their way, didnt catch news about NOLO vistory, end of war and british surrendered. feds were called traitors and were done


era of good feelings

James munroe thought of disbanding political parties


era of good feelings Democratic-Republican party

young d-r's wanted the national gov to build bridges, roads and etc
old d-r's hated tariffs, wanted to leave it up to the state


william crawford presidency drama

# of individual campaigned themselves, jackson wins the more votes than anyone else, but no majority, it goes to house of reps, jackson assumes he won, but when the voting is done, John Q Adams wins, henry clay gets #2 spot, jackson denounces clay's appt at corrupt bargain and jackson begins campaigning 4 years ahead of next election.


martin van buran

grew up in Ny, well schooled in party gov and party life, when observed, he is disheartned and nothing works, dangerous.


things that martin van buran is concerned about with political parties

1. permanent campaigning
nothing formally starts or ends campaigning, presidents can govern or campaign, both cannot be effective if done at the same time.
2. factionalism
new electoral strategy: 4-5 people running has a slim chance of winning majority
3. demogogery
appeal to emotion rather than reason.
nothing to restrain or moderate candidates, they can make dangerous appeals to the public.
4. legitimacy
election most likely decided by house if many people are running, people dont like the isssue of congress deciding (corruption, back-room dealing, etc). its best to have the electoral college to decide.


soft demogogery v hard demogogory

soft is flattering people to get elected, hard is making appeals to fear and anger


martin's idea on how to solve problems

have a 2 permanent party system


how does a 2 permanent party system solve legitamacy

only way to the house is a tie (improbable)


how does a 2 permanent party system solve factionalism?

no one will run local, sectional, head a national campaign, appeal to national issues


how does a 2 permanent party system solve demogogory?

more at stake than just presidency, last thing a party would want is to say or do something parties hold nominees in check to make sure their parties dont get a bad name


how does a 2 permanent party system solve permanent campaigning?

parties reserve resources and efforts for last 2 mos before election


2 party system did 2 things:

1. gave them legitimate opposition.
good to speak out, it legitimizes the 2 parties
2. cultivates civic virtue
keep people aware, give them outlet, educates them


effects of competition in the parties

1, voter turnout increases exponentially
parties prove to be capable
2. increase of competitiveness between parties in all offices
all elections were competitive
3. looked for party labels to polls
4. developed pro politician class
new class of inidivuals rise up that want politican to be a vocation
5. congress organized and run by parties


legistlative caucus

chose agenda and leadership for party


parties replaced what system?

caucus system with a convention to decide on the party nominee


democratic convention vs republican convention

d: more chaotic, 2/3 had to agree
r: simple majority vote


parties construct platforms

to show what issues they stand for, transmitted to public


individual voters saw it as a duty

to vote and choose a political party


private v personal interest

people sacrificed for common good.. party over personality


party newspapers

each city capital had republican, dem, or whig news.


dem newspaper

the globe


rep newspaper

national intellgence


whig newspaper

the union


top of pyramid for newspapers

national organs, based in DC.


editors of newspapers

field marshalls of party, high ranking and important for success, they discussed what was at stake and what needed to be done


newspaper funding

very expensive, several sources of income, dues from members, assessments from appointed beuracracy members, wealthy donors


fundraising for newspapers

done at local levels and tripled up


what did candidates rely on for success

print, stump speaking, and debates with opponents


president campaigning in what way

front porch campaigns


where did voting take place

schools, hotels, saloons, churches, prominent buildings.


strategy of locations

change venues location to depress voter turn out for oposing side


what were campaigns built around

parades and marches that tens of thousands would come to see


how were ballots set up?

ballots were printed, you either chose all rep, dem, or whig


moblization at polls

fraud, people voted multiple times, dead man voting, but wasnt as widespread.


tone of political discourse

could say anything, anytime, anywhere. if you wanted to succeed in politics, you needed thick skin and the best option was to strike back at your opponent


corruption in patronage system

people were hired on the basis of political view, created more jobs to give away, and more way to bribe voters, turning the parties into be viewed as undemocratic, you cant have organizational democracy structure when you have 10s of millions of people working


progressives goal

1. began with civil service reform: enacted series to proffesionalize patronage jobs
2. australian ballot enacted
3. encouraged states to adopt primaries to nominate candidates to office
4. methods of direct democracy to bypass


how did the civil service reform look?

1. civil service exam - you must take a test to get a patronage job, cannot just get a job
2. makes it harder to fire civil servants - cant be fired for political reasons


what is the australian ballot

secret ballot, no longer filled in, much more difficult to bribe voters, and makes corruption more inefficent


what were methods of direct democracy to bypass

referendum and recall initiative
if there is a bill before legislators to look at and they dont pass it, you can get a petition signed to decide whether to vote for it.


effect of progressive refors

huge decrease in voter turnout: 70-80% to 40-50%. gave traditional parties a bad name and weakened them.


Lyndon B Johnson

served 1 yr after reagan's death, became unpopular due to vietnam war (media portrays it as unwinnable), anti-warism grows.


precedent of presidency and story

dont challenge nomination for sitting presidents, Eugene McCarthy bucked this trend, no real expectation of winning, wanted to present his issues, does well in the first primary, gets media and press, Johnson says he will drop out of race, Bobby kennedy jumps in, gets assassinated.


Nixon winning story

McCarthy got all of Kennedy's delegates, dem party freaks out, nominates Humphrey, doesnt win one primary, thousands of protesters protest war and support McC, McC not allowed in Dem hall, onlu Humphrey addresses convention and wins nomination, students riot, Nixon wins in a landslide bc all of the dem drama


McGovern - Frasier commision

examines how to improve the nominating process.


most significant change in the mcgovern- frasier commision

1.want states to adopt primaries, many states comply
2. delegates should look like their constituents (52% of pop female, 52% of delegates should be female)
takes us into the modern primary era.


purpose of convention today

glorified pep rally.


modern campaigning today

presidents have own campaign teams, decide what to say, how to say, decide on themes and issues, doesnt have to folllow the party lead.


why do parties change over time?

the critical realignment theory.


the critical realignment theory

fundamental transformation in the composition of the existing party framework bc of the emergence of some crisis issue


how do the whigs split up?

1/2 are split between slavery or not, so one half goes to dems and one half goes to reps


forms that critical realignment can take

1. large # of voters shift their support to exisiting party and vote for opposite party.
2. previous non-participating voters can cast ballot, resulting in major partisan shift


results of critical realignment

1. reversal in power
2. replacement of political party by a new political party
3. possibility of both political parties are being replaced


2 basic features of critical realignment

1. totality: party that wins must win everything, both houses of congress and presidency
2. durability: must remain in control over election cycles


5 realigning elections

1. 1800 - jeffersionian revolution
2. 1828- jacksonian democracy
3. 1860 - civil war realignment
4. 1896 - gold vs silver standard
5. 1932 - new deal election


why was there no critical realignment in the 60s

there were no critical realignment issues to divide people and if parties took a stand on all different issues then you would appeal to a small percentage of people


consequence of not taking a stand on a lot of issues

voters begin to be dis-engaged with parties since they didnt stand for anything



voters detached from parties and began voting independently


critical realisngment assumes

that everyone identifies with a party. it doesnt think of people who arent loyal, they continue to assume that voters will always vote the same way


powers not discussed formally

1. leadership / agenda setting power
- someone who takes charge of nations and sets out agenda for it, presidency in modern gov.
2. dignity power
- dignity or coherence of the nation, who or what represents this? presidents


what roles can a president not do at the same time

head of states and head of govs.


who had the most stable gov

new york: their state constitution established powerful and independant executive who served as a check on the legislastor


what did the founders take from the NY government

you can make powerful gov and republican gov compatible if it is structured the right way.


executive power recipe

unity, duration, adequate provision, and component power


constitution says the president is

1. commander in chief
2. can pardon anyone for anything
3. recommend measures to congree
4. veto legistlation
5. given power to recieve ambassadors
6. nominates federal judges
7. appoint high level gov offices
8. making treaties w foreign nations


constitutional base of power

more difficult to take president power away


paragotive power

take action in time of emergency for good of american people


independence of presidency from congress

framers gave the pres independent electoral base, members of a congress prohibited from serving as electors or in the executive branch, congress controls salary of the president


what does a lengthy term of office and infinite reeligibility promote

continuity and stability in laws.


arguments for infinite reeligibility

1. great president list is small, so when you have a president come along, why not keep him?
2. induces president to behave in office


george washington view ofpres terms

informally chose a 2 year limit, and saw 8 years as electing a monarch. he didnt think electing someone until they died was healthy for the republic


response to FDR 4 consecutive terms

republicans pushed for 2 terms of presidency


importance of unity in presidency

condusive to decision, secrecy, activity, and dispatch, one person vs group of people making quick decsiions,


what did Hamilton say about unity

one person should make the quick decisions, rather than a committee taking their time


why would secrecy be important in presidency

must have to operate in secrecy, when one person can keep a secret better than a group


legistlature branch

what purpose of gov is, what policies to achieve (roder that steers boat)


judiciary branch

they deal with rough things, they are the anchor of the boat


executive brnahc

brings energy to make everything work, the sail of the ship


george washington

- article 2 would not have been written the way it was w/out wash
- set many precendents
- responsible for title and press of pres
- avoided royalty and kingship
-tried to be very civilian to be viewed as a close figure
-promoted public policies he favored
- neutrality proclomation


what was the neutrality proclamation

US is neutral between Great Britan and France conflict



-changes wash precendent of giving state of union message to congress in person, hand delivered them in congress
-lousianna purchase (perogative power)


andrew jackson

-refined use of pres veto
- pres only elected gov by people of the whole, pres needs to bring national focus to policy process
-ask whether legistlation serves country good as a whole
-used more veto than all vetos combined



-not passive when meeting a crisis
- waged war w/out congress consent
-suspended writ of habeous corpous
- emancipated slaves in slave states



-took on power of commander in chief like lincoln
- war on poverty


why do presidents use the rhetoric like "war on drugs"

to assert power normally wouldnt have under constitution


what made modern presidency look like today

1. americas rise as a global actor
-presidency has become more influential, driving force of american foriegn policy
2. rise of welfare state
-enhanced presidential policy formulation
-execution of laws as they have been passed
3. mass communication
-radio, TV, brought presidency to broad national community


rhetorical presidency

chiefly exercise power through speech, diminshed question of presidency importance, never know what is important, president talks to much public doesnt pay much attention.


constituional presidency

source of power: constituion
goals: check congress
leadershIP: congress
function: acting


modern presidency

source of power: public opinion
goals: policy success
leadership: presidency
function: speaking


head of state

represents dignity of nation, public affairs, press conferences, state dinners, representing aborad


head og gov

implement policy ideas, compromises, building coalitions, attending intricacies of legistalations


why doesnt making the VP a head of state help the problem

bc people dont want to see a subordinate, they want to see the president


constitution on war-making power

for president to make war, congress has to declare war, then the pres can wage war.


war powers resolution

-congress. if the pres takes troops into war, he has 48 hrs to tell why, under what authority, how long.
-congress cant stop pres, just has 60 days to make war.
-at the end of 60 days, congress can:
1. formally declare war
2. extend time president makes war
3. doesnt act and pres brings troops home


problems with war powers resolution

1. wars dont take 2 months
-few would take more than 2 months, this is not a limitation on pres power
2. congress would never order troops home
-what congress would stand up to an approval rating


executive privelege:

communication among executive branch officals should be confidential


US v Nixon

S.c said that executive privelege does exist, but president council says absolute confidentialyu pertains to president communication


us v nixon limited executive privelege how

military, diplomatic, and national security. everything else the court extends and decides on case by case.


where is judicial power vested

in the supreme court


qualifications for the supreme court

1. nominated by the president
2. confirmed by the senate
3. no age requirement citizenship required
5. no law degree required
6. no residency required


2 types of jurisdiction

1. original jurisdiction
2. appeallate jurisdiction


what is original jurisdiction

SC can be the originating legal body to hear a case under 3 lawsuit: 1. ambassador cases
2. high ranking gov officals 3. state is a party, very few end as original jurisdiction


appellate jurisdiction

heard on appeal, must hear case on lower courts


how is the SC checked

1. impeachment / removal of judges
2. congress can change the size of the SC
3. congress can limit course of applleate jurisdiction
4. pres can refuse to enforce laws
5. amend constitution to turn over SC order


how many cases yearly are appealed to SC

10,000, 1% are heard


how many justices must want to hear a case



why does it take 4 justices to hear a case

1. controversy wants to resolve
2. particular interest in a law
3. compelling.


oral arguments before the SC

very strict with standards, usually 10 secs before interrupted with questions, when justices are done, they go to a conference room and vote.


what is the power of judiciary?

power of judicial review, power of court to declare acts of gov to be inconstituional



court is unelected, undemocratic, yet can say what the constitution means, final say on constitutional means, bery telling that it was left out of the constitution.


Alexander Hamilton defends court

nothing to fear, judicial branch is the weakest branch of gov. power of sword: pres, power of purse: lesgistlative.SC cant do anything unless cases are brought to them, neither force/will, only judgements.


Marbury v Madison

42 new judicial positions made and 42 nominated and confirmed by senate, each have commissions drawn up and signed by the pres, turned over to sec of state and deliver commission. 17 remain undelivered bc time ran out. Madision finds commissions on desk and jefferson says throw them out, not delivered, not valid. Marbury sues madisions to deliver commisson to him.


2 choices court has when dealing w marbury v madison

1. issue writ
-James madison will refuse and court would look weak.
2. deny marburys writ
-obviously deserves the writ, and shows they are backing down to jefferson.


how does chief justice john marshall approach marbury v madison

1. does marbury deserve the writ?
-fundamental requirements of constitution have been met, a pieve of paper does not meet a requirement, yes he deserve it.
2. do the laws afford a remedy?
-yes, power plainly written: courts can issue writs
3. does marbury get his writ?
no, section 13 of judiciary act is unconstitutional,SC heard the case under orig jur, any case w a request of writ of manameous can go before the SC, there is a conflict


what is judiciary supposed to do when a statutory law conflicts with the const?

all other laws are below the const, when something lower than it conflicts, const wins. court has no power to issue writs of mandamous, so NO the laws do not have a remedy this problem.


2 most significant powers courses

1. McColough v Maryland
2. gibbons v ogden.


McC v Maryland

second chartering of the bank of US. the first one expired and the debate renewed, so congress chartered it. established branches of the bank thru the US.


Maryland in McC v Maryland

1 branch of the us brank was in MD, decided to tax it, since other businesses were taxed too.


2 options Maryland had

1. pay tax n paper money printed on
2. avoid paying allottment by paying $5,000


who was Mccoulough

a cashier (president) of branch of the bank. asked if the superiors wanted him to pay the fee or not, they said no, he was arrested and jailed, found guilty and appealed to the SC. he was vs a state, no prob with court hearing case bc it was an appeallate jurisdiction. a lot was at stake, Marshall weighs between state and national


2 key issues marshall states inMcC v MD

1. does congress have power to incorporate a bank?
- no prob with first bank
-supported by james madision
2. can a state tax a national institution?
-no, it would create the situation of taxation without rep
-money mixed in with national bank from other states, doesnt get a say in how other states use the money
- national law > state law


history of first bank

the first bank was never challenged if it was constitutional, so it doesnt mean it was specifically constitutional the first time, madision also initially opposed the chartering of the first bank


nature of constitution and the bank

const is not and was not intended to be a legal code, instead it deals w powers and basic structure of gov, it is a skeleton, and we can conclude it isnt supposed to charter a bank, doesnt mean its not constitutional to charter a bank


where would getting a bank from?

necessary and proper clause, const framers felt congress should spell that out


maryland on the necessary and proper clause

those things that are indepensibly necessary and proper


marshall doesnt agree with marylands view of necessary and proper clause

necessary could mean convienent, useful, and necessary, in other parts of const framers created grades of necessary, if founders didnt put indispensibly next to necessary, congress can interpret that as convienent and usable.


let the end be constituionally

consists with letter and spirit of constituion, let ends justify means.


story of Gibbons v Ogden

NY grants monopoly to operate steamboats in NY waters, license Ogden to operate boats, Gibbons is ogdens former business partner, claimed he was a licensed under a 1783 federal license, started own steamboat business in NY water. Ogden had a monopoly under state law, but Gibb had operated under federal law.


who won Gibb v ogden



what is the nature of national commerce power

ogden: commerce only applies to buying/selling of goods, navigation doesnt fall under this congress power
Marshall: commerce means intercourse: movement transaction, navigation of goods


extent of commerce power

commerce intermingled w states, inconvienent and unnceccssary, congress can regulate in states, marshall very strategically doesnt say its unconstituional


gibbons lawyer

states didnt have any states commerce power, all national power. marshall responds by neither rejecting or agreeing, this becomes source of idea all commerce power is inherhently national


14th amendment ratified

important clause: equal protection clause, equal protection of laws.
no real agreement, lack of consencous of what this applies to, civil rights act passed after this, prohibiting discrmination.


civil rights cases

only state discrmintation prohibited, didnt apply to hotels, businesses, resturant, means of trans.


Plessy V Ferguson story

LA law passes that says rail operators have tokeep passengers seperate on rail cars. Plessy, 1/8 black, tries to get on white car and put on trial, convicted and appeals and case goes to SC


2 arguments why plessys story is unconstitutional

1. violates 14th amendment
2. 13th amendment --- seperating by races had psychological effects of amking them inferior, referencing them lower class, slavery


Justice brown argument against 14th amendment

sep does not violate equal laws, = fare for transporation, = given carriage, = are able to get stops. as long as resources are equal, no problem.


justice brown argument against the 13th amendment

blacks who hold grievances, LA is trying to maintain public order, but its your own fault for feeling inferior, the law simply says they must be kept seprate, inferiority is a chioce


1 dissenter against Pless. v ferg

Justice Harlin. he belived thatprotection clause prohibits any sort of private action, const is to be colorblind. gov should never take race into consderation, La law isnt very reasonable and W and b should learn to live together


brown v board

series of lawsuits challenging segregation and education


earl warren wanted to accomplish 2 things with brown v board

1. unanimous verdict - any difference would give an incentive for south to fight back
2. short opinion - wanted opinion in newspapers in country to announce to them that fed courts were open to people challenging


what could not be a used argument in the seg v schools

14th amendment, warren says we could not recognize that education didnt have the same value in 1888 than 1954


does segregation in schools deprive children of oppurtunity

yes, all seperation is unequal, violates the 14th amendment, detremental effect on colored chikldren, sense of inferioristy


what does segregation do?

instills a sense of inferiority, a kids process of learning will be changed, given blacks a sense of low self esteem, orders schools to be integrated


judicial activism

judges acting as policy makers, rather than interpreters of the law


who was roe

norma mccorvey, attended carnival, went home alone, attacked, raped, became preggo, wanted abortion, unable to abort, womens group filed lawsuit in fed corts to challenge inconstituationallyt of law, except the story wasnt true


abortion is

a fundamental consitutional right


issue of mootness

if judicial controversy already concluded by the time it reaches courts, it is pronounced moot. roe alreayd had her baby, but justice blackman decides there will never be a case that reaches the SC bc preg only lasts 9-10 mos, so they use this opp for all future roes.


3 big issues in roe v wade.

1. right to abortion(roe argument)
2. right to life (TX argument)
3. health of mother


where would we find the right to abortion?

found in right to privacy, but this is not found in const either


griswold v connecticut

prohibited doctors to talk to married couples about contraceptives, judges couldnt find where the right to privacy was found, Blackman says we dont have to find where it exists because all judges believed that it was a right in the Const.


does right to privacy include abortion

decisions we make with our bodies is the highest privacy.


blackman's belief on right to life.

life begins at viability. TX can only protect the viable life, not life before that point


blackman solution to roe v wade

trimester scheme


1st trimester

1. abortion: yes
2. life: none, not viable
3. health: no, (safer to have abortion than baby)
abortion cannot be restricted in 1st trimester


2nd trimester

1. abortion: yes
2. life: no, still not viable
3. health: equally dangerous to have abortion and go to term
abortion cannot be restricted, but the procedure can be. (certain # of nurses, where, etc)


3rd trimester

1. abortion: no
2. life: yes, viable
3. health: yes, extremely dangerous to have abortion in 3rd trimester


3rd trimester exception

if mother's health is at risk