ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2015
- Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Roe v. Wade | 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe versus Wade. The effect of the Court’s ruling was immediate and far-reaching, expanding the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment and altering the legal landscape on the issue of abortion across the country.
Norma McCorvey, a single, pregnant woman in Texas, sought an abortion. At the time, Texas law prohibited abortions unless performed or obtained to save the life of the mother. To protect her privacy, McCorvey filed suit in federal court under the name Jane Roe. The defendant was Henry Wade, the district attorney in the Texas county where McCorvey sought the abortion.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/roe-v-wade
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/roe-v-wade
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our TH-cam Channel ► th-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Unbiased and just the facts. Refreshing. Great video.
Brace yourself. This video is about to blow up
I truly truly appreciate this bit sized summary provided on this matter!! I wish people would seek out information like this for better understanding of the battle for reproductive rights going on!
i wish u didnt comment the same on every video
informative but at the end of the video u should provide the summary and who won the case because I get confused actually who won the cases in your videos.
Nobody won. The supreme court doesn't decide win or loss, but provides constitutional rulings.
To your point though, 'Roe' lost back in Texas, and ended up having the baby.
@@trinacrawford8150 of course there's a winner. Roe won.
@@trex1448 not anymore
@@trinacrawford8150 ok so to get this straight, Roe wanted an abortion, Texas said no, she goes to the supreme court where they ruled what? It is or isn’t constitutional to have an abortion??
@@paulmontoya1786 The SCOTUS ruled in a 7-2 vote that it is constitutional to have an abortion because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice to have an abortion in this case.
I didn't know she actually carried the child to term. Wow.
I think TX tried to say she didnt have standing since she was not pregnant anymore
@@gaguy1967 I read the case years ago researching public interest exception which is apparently not a thing, but I learned a lot.
She was forced to birth an undesirable pregnancy due to the fact that our legal system takes YEARS to conclude a single case. So in reality she lost before the case even went to the Supreme Court. 😭
Honestly the main issue is defining what counts as "life." On one side, there are people that view the life of the mother as the set life while Pro-Lifers view life as both the fetus and the mother.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1
Again, the issue is not a matter of protecting the rights of women because the 14th Amendment states that it will rightly do so but rather, it questions whether or not the fetus has rights. The 14th Amendment does not disclose the classification of life to that of the fetus, therefore was overturned to that of the state. People are looking at the Justices as if they've done something wrong other than stick to the amendment. The 14th amendment is vague. It's not their fault.
If somebody murders a pregnant woman, how can they be charged with double homicide if the fetus is not a life?
@@as_below_so_above
Bc in theory if the mother wasn't murdered, barring any complications, after a successful birth there "would" have been two lives potentially & therefore is reflected in the sentence.
A fetus is absolutely a life, but until it can successfully live outside of the womb it depends solely on another's.
The core of the issue isn't truly over what is or isn't a life or even when one begins. But whether or not another life has the right to violate someone else's bodily autonomy.
Great video
It seems like a couple of statements were made overly vague. The reductive wording at 0:51 makes it sound like the 14th amendment enunerates a right to privacy. The word choice used are 4:24 unintentionally implies that Reinquist used circular reasoning, by not specifying that his argument was that _at the time of 14 amendment ratification_ states had abortion restrictions.
finaly a video sumerizing it without any agenda pushing from eighter side
I read that Roe later revealed that she lied about everything surrounding the case. I don't know if it's for sure true, but the same source claims there's record of her saying this as well as advocating against abortion.
Yes, she lied about being raped - her legal team encouraged her to lie to move the case along quicker and to gain sympathy. Who knows, at that time the case might have gotten thrown out if she simply wanted to be able to party without having to worry about a baby. And yes she later became pro-life (and she never had an abortion).
@Lakyn Collier So she was a liar at the beginning and at the end.... Roe V Wade was based on a lie.
@@mathildeyoung1823 The woman who was known as Roe (Norma McCorvey) revealed before she died that she was paid to be against abortion after the case. Regardless, her lawyer ,Sarah Weddington, had used her as a representative for a broader group of women who may choose to exercise control over their bodies. The case was never meant to be about "Roe" specifically.
@@sarahpolerbeara Roe had to LIE and say she was raped to gain sympathy for the movement... The case should have been thrown out based on her LIE
yes, it was a fake rape claim, and now it is seem as a right to kill, which is also fake
uhhhhhhhhh this was unexpected in my playlist of mama doctor jones lol
A woman's right to choose shouldn't be up for discussion, at least in the first trimester. I live in a country that banned abortions in the late 60's and the results were horrifying: after the initial increase in births, a massive increase in women's mortality due to back alley abortions followed, coupled with an increase in child abandonment -in orphanages that looked like Hitler's deathcamps-, neglect, domestic violence, and child mortality, to name a few of the consequences. Look up Decree 770 if you think I'm full of crap. This is not a humane solution at all. This isn't democracy. The ban was lifted after December 1989, the situation became more stable and even the number of abortions decreased but the discussion is much more complex than this. All in all, I stand by what I said, it's nobody's damn business what a woman does or doesn't do with her body, period. I'm not a feminist but this shouldn't be an issue. Sorry to all pro lifers, it's my opinion and I stand by it.
Overturning Roe V. Wade has nothing to do with banning abortion.
Women should NOT have the right to murder
@@offdogs6217 not murder
@@kaylakuhl1680 it is the intentional killing of an innocent life. Murder
SOS Mama Doctor Jones and Legal Eagle. What are the implications of overturning the results of Roe?
I read about Griswold vs Connecticut, the judges literally couldnt find how the US constitution actually defends a married couple’s “marital right” to contraceptives. I think it’s pretty clear that that was something that should be left to legislation and no other branch, whether in the federal or state government. And how that’s supposed to somehow apply to abortion even under non-marital circumstances I dont know.
The Supreme Court has the ability to imply powers that aren't explicitly written in the Constitution. This ability comes from McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The 14th Amendment states that no State can deprive anyone of liberty without due process nor can any State deny equal protection of laws. Abortion bans violate a woman's right to liberty and denies her equal protection under the law. This violation is unConstitutional, which is exactly what the Supreme Court found. It's entirely logical and well within the scope of valid Constitutional interpretation.
@@otterologist5866 It doesnt deny women equal protection under law. And I mean this in 2 different senses.
1. If we’re talking criminalizing women, the arguable implication is that you the abortion criminal will be protected from being jailed for years, assaulted by other criminals, protected from yourself, etc until the your trial, that is due process. And because every state has to do this, that counts as equal protection of laws.
2. If the idea is criminalizing only the service and the doctors, that’s literally no different from legislating bans(whether federally or by state) on certain drugs with FDA guidance or something, which can arguably be more important with regard to the health care of people of both genders. That’s no infringement on the woman, that’s just illegalizing the service(that btw men and infertile women dont have access to). The US illegalizes services/drugs all the dang time with regard to healthcare. You cant call each one a constitutional right every single time.
See here’s the thing. You say the Supreme Court can imply powers that arent explicit in the constitution. So first off, that to me sounds like a very loose abuse of power. However, you implied it one way, I just used that logic against you by implying it another way. So you can violate a decision, that does not mean you are violating the originality of the constitution itself. Everyone knows this. While I dont expect that Roe will be overturned anytime soon, saying that overturning it is “factually” unconstitutional is laughable because not every justice agrees and because you’re choosing between either the individual(which in the case of Roe the woman ended up regreting her abortion anyway) or the states.
@@otterologist5866 Anyway, you’re getting off topic, I was focusing on a different case.
@@PWNINSWAGMASTER But the 14th Amendment also says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
P
I'd be interested in hearing from kid that survived the wanted abortion...their position on rvw that is. Does something like that exist in print, audio or video?
Baby roe doesn't want any parts of this. She was raised happily by her adoptive parents. I just saw her interview.
@@fittomakeup9890 Can you share the link/source please?
@@ledisalbert3426 you can type in baby roe. The interview will populate.
@@No._1_Karen it's actually pro life and anti life
@@fittomakeup9890 I am sorry our society's insistance that the mother is the best person to raise a child harmed you. I was raised by my parents and an unrelated woman. My coworker matter of factly said "my grandfather raised me and will die soon" His parents crossed the Mexico-US border before he did (he is a legal US citizen because we work in defense)
A mother seeking an abortion is not the best nor the only person to raise a child.
This is going to blow up
Thank you google.
Why aren't comments disabled for this video?
facial supremacy sex
Maybe you ought to watch this video at 5:17 in the timeline. They ask for comments...so is this your response to their request for comments?
Why should they?
The Christholes are always right. No one can have an Opinion but then.
@@murderhill1947 Wtf does a man ::cough cough::: need to have anything to say about 5his subject?
Well give it back to the states where it belongs. Can't keep picking judges based on how they feel about abortion.
Roe vs. Wade, God please don't lead the way
TH-cam algorithm lmao
Hol up hol up the woman KEPT the baby
She gave birth before the case finished in the supreme court. It took too long !
She had a failed abortion
upvote if you’re here after the leak.
Ah yes roe the case which perfectly embodies why the argument for abortion is self defeating
What do you mean?
You're gonna have to explain that.
It's been a year man, we're still waiting on that explanation.
this is relevant again, explain
Y'all came out the woodwork all of a sudden lmao, roe undermines itself it needed Cassie and even then the argument was not sound and had potholes.. trimester? Nope undue burden? Nope. Argument for bodily autonomy in order to support abortion? Well the bodily autonomy of the baby. There's a reason why the argument didn't age well even pro choice allies agree.. if RBG says it's bad law... Your not on the same page as the rest of us
This is a lot of plagiarism. Next time make things in your own words.
Equating the value of prenatal life at all stages of the pregnancy is a moral imperative. There are always 2 bodies/2 autonomous persons to consider. The justices bent over backwards to accommodate the messy inconvenience of an unwanted child by relegating the child to a mass of cells and allowing for the mother to choose execution. Millions of lives later we finally come full circle, now armed with much more scientific capability to understand that human life and all that makes it such is present in the first weeks if not days after conception.
Yeah I don’t think a fetus is an “autonomous person.”
There are far better services to this about the whole issue which brought the court to the point of legalising abortion. Legally, the matter is extremely iffy and that is why Roe remained an issue. My own personal view is that a woman is carrying a baby. Why carrying a baby makes a woman think that she has a right of life or death over the baby, has always been beyond me, not because I am dense, but because one does not imply the other. There is no connect. Carriage does not empower one to act as if one were some god. So to help Ukraine being terminated by Russia we try to marshal world opinion against Russia, but a baby in the court of its own mother, can have no advocate. Because it is a private matter, but privacy is allowed only to the mother to decide, the privacy issue privileges the baby, the one about to be murdered, not one bit, as if the baby is just a tennis ball and it's up to the mother to volley it on court and let the game continue or off court and lose the point. The bad judgement in Roe makes the mother the supreme arbiter of a foetus's life. As if anybody has any right over the life of others. So a woman thinks it is her body and nobody has any right to do with it whatever except her, conveniently simultaneously forgetting, that the baby too has a body over whom nobody has a right to pass a death sentence on. So, as I said in the beginning. A woman is a carrier of a baby, not its owner. We do not own our babies, nor our children. Supreme egotism is what is at stake here. The egotism that reasons that nobody has the right to tell me what to do, however I reserve the right to terminate the life of another, making them do what I want. So, I never needed the US Supreme Court to tell me where the right really was: The right was on the baby's side because it has every right to be born. The woman has no right to murder anybody just because the victim is occupying her belly. And even the commandment, thou shalt not kill, is not necessary to come to the easy conclusion that Roe was basically an aberration of justice. Philosophically and not necessarily to tie with this argument, one must remember that we come into this world naked, owning nothing and being totally dependent on others. We leave it after most likely becoming totally dependent on others yet again, in most cases and taking nothing with us. We become dust occupying important real estate when not scattered to the wind. From owning nothing to being completely unable to take anything with us. So, a moment of consideration about this is important. All this egotism, all these ownership issues is just thrashing about in the muck for a few years after all. My body, my baby, my kids. You own nothing. Not even your own life. Let alone the life of others. As a matter of faith, all believers know that only God is the owner of all and everyone and everything because it is through him that everything that is good, is made. But as I said, one requires neither the US Supreme Court nor the Bible to easily realise that Roe was a deep miscarriage of justice against all the unborn. A miscarriage that has to date totalled 60 Million baby murders and counting. And then there are some who hold that women are sweet, tender, caring and loving. Sure, ask those 60 Million who have never seen the light of day and who God knows what important matters some of them could have accomplished had they lived, like for example, found a cure for cancer. Murder is nothing but greed wrapped in ignorance, whatever any intellectual tells you.
Roe was never an out spoken advocate of the pro-life movement. She was forced against her will to do this by threat to her personal safety. & safety to her children. She later admitted to this on her death bed.
wow! any links on that?
There is no source. Stop getting your news from youtube comments section
This movie is for real!?! Well I guess if Cats is a real movie this cinematic turd burger can too. I'm an RN and can't believe this Shit. I Never had Rodents/children I was more intelligent than that.
I sincerely hope you do not work around children and have no business being an RN. Disgusting.
She was also paid as an actress to lie to the American people. She admitted that multiple times over many years. Just wanted to add that fact. This whole thing was based on her lying. I am thankful that she saw the truth and did what she could to expose the truth.
She also lied about how she was impregnated. She was not raped. The decision of the Supreme Court seemed to have been made with weak arguments and assumptions from a right to privacy and due process. Unfortunately this decision would fail. The justices assumed integrity within the medical community, which over the years we have seen that there is not. Medical community decided it was fine to give a person 9 months or more (40weeks-10 months) to decide on termination. This quickly became about money. They then decided to use the viable fetuses as a spring board to new business practices. $$$. All these actions of a weak case work brought about its end. Abortion decisions need to be in our constitution but clearly defined and argued. Our privacy and due process in these decisions need to be addressed. We need our rights and protections guaranteed in a much stronger truthful and deliberately worded case to bring to Supreme Court and quickly. BTW. Suspicious Deaths of judges should be investigated thoroughly by outside agencies. Suspicious deaths are a big part of problem.
So let’s throw it out and let women decide what to do with their bodies. I am prochoice but strongly believe in jailing those who use abortion as a form of birth control. Birth control in itself is very complicated and not easily accessible to the entire American population, but it’s there for a reason.
stop the cap.
No woman is using it as birth control.
You aren't prochoice if you believe in putting women in jail for their right to choose what to do to their bodies. Youre a dictator
what an awful take!!!!!!!
Why not just get men to do vasectomies then? Takes 2 to make a baby
The unborn should have equal protection under the law and those who conspire to murder them while they are too small to defend themselves ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as criminal murderers.
Equal protection means equal for everyone regardless of race, gender, size or age. Bigger humans do not have the right to murder smaller humans without facing justice and consequences following conviction.
shut up
Does that include men who dont pay at least $1000 a month in child support. Because untill you start holding them accountable you are practicing a double standard.
@@chereseplatt686 I appreciate the sentiment but this is a red herring fallacy on this subject. Fathers don’t pay child support for unborn children. Fathers should remain married to the mother of their children and keep both parents in the household according to God’s law, but I digress.
But, to answer your double standard challenge: yes, any father who participates in the murder of his unborn child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if he is convicted. Equal protection and equal prosecution. No partiality under the law.
Thanks for the question.
Then you should support men having mandatory vasectomies.
@@jenkins5265 I’d seriously consider legislation that permanently alters a man’s ability to have children if he’s a habitual offender of God’s law. More than that, I’d support legislation that permanently alters a man’s ability to copulate outside the covenant of marriage. Marriage/family are fundamental institutions in our culture. We destroy them at our own peril. It’s wise to put limits on sin. That’s what laws are for.