Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Gonzales vs. Car(without a)hart

Abortion: pro-life
by

monica giles

on 8 May 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Gonzales vs. Car(without a)hart

Gonzales v. Car{without a}hart
HISTORY
WORK CITED
"RIGHT TO PRIVACY"
How far does the right to privacy extend?
GONZALES v. CARHART
WHAT CONSISTS OF LIFE?
Abortion: Pro-Life
Abortion has been around since before the 1800's.
Starting with Massachusetts in 1850, all but one state had made abortion illegal by 1910(pro-choice.org/pewform.org).
Colorado was the first state to legalize abortion in 1967(pro-choice.org).
In 1965 a political ground was set in place during the Griswold v. Connecticut case(pewforum.org).
The first official case relating abortion to go before the Supreme Court was the well known Roe v. Wade trial in 1973(pewforum.org).
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was adopted in 2003(nrlc.org).
Unborn Victims of Violence Act adopted in 2004(publiceye.org).
The most recent abortion related federal case took place in 2007, known as Gonzales v. Carhart(law.cornell.edu)
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Law: prohibits using, "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."
Estelle Griswold: Director of Planned Parenthood in CT
Dr. Lee Buxton: Professor at Yale
Griswold and Buxton were both arrested after opening a birth control clinic in Connecticut.
Buxton paid bail and Griswold and faced the Supreme Court.
Griswold used the 14th Amendment to argue that Connecticut was denying citizens the "right to privacy."
Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart were the only two with a dissenting opinion, sticking to the fact that the "right to privacy" is not actually written anywhere in the constitution
The Supreme Court majority overruled in agreeing with Griswold that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional
JUNE 7, 1965
Supreme Courts ruling gave the right to marital privacy and disregards the Connecticut law that banned married couples the use of contraceptives.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/246437/Griswold-v-State-of-Connecticut
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
ROE v. WADE
Texas Law: prohibited abortion in all cases, excluding rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
Norma McCovy(Jane Roe): Pregnant woman searching for abortion in Texas.
Henry Wade: Dallas District Attorney
21 year old Roe was tried after lying that she was raped to get an abortion in her third pregnancy.
Roe said the Texas law was unconstitutional and opposed Wade at the Supreme Court.
Roe used Griswold v. Connecticut to argue the Texas law was denying citizens the "right to privacy."
Justices William Rehnquist and Byron White were the only two with a dissenting opinion, sticking to the fact that the "right to privacy" does not extend to the limits of abortion.
The Supreme Court majority overruled in agreeing with Roe that the Texas law was unconstitutional.
JANUARY 22, 1973
Supreme Courts ruling gave the right for a women to choose abortion in all cases and states had the final decision on regulations concerning third trimester abortions.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrr02
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
Supreme Court Justices
ROE v. WADE
Henry Wade
Jane Roe
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT
Act states: that an intact partial-birth abortion, "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
Intact partial-birth abortion consists of intentionally delivering the baby's body up to the head. The doctor will use different methods of puncturing the head to, "kill the partially delivered infant" and then deliver the rest of the body.
27 states have regulations put in place banning the procedure.
Does not include a health exception for mothers because Congress' factual findings state that there are other alternatives to saving a mother and the procedure actually has more risks involved.
Some risks involve: uterine rupture, hemorrhaging, death and inability to carry other pregnancies to full term.
In the procedure, labor is induced, the child's head stuck in the birth canal is alive and can, "fully experience the pain associated with piercing his/her skull and sucking out his/her brain.
JANUARY 7, 2003
Partial-Birth Abortions are unsafe, "ethically wrong and is never the only appropriate procedure." The ban enhances pregnant women's health and protects partially-born children.
http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/pba/Partial-Birth%20Abortion%20Ban%20Act%20enrolled.pdf
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Act states: When the murder of a pregnant woman occurs and the unborn child dies too, the criminal is charged with the death of two victims.
APRIL 1, 2004
If a "child in utero" is killed they are recognized as a victim of law and the assailant is charged with a second offense.
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/reproductive-justice/articles/key-facts-unborn-victims-violence-act.php
Also known as "Laci and Conner's Law," it was signed by President George W. Bush, with a 5 to 4 Supreme Court vote.
Prior to this law the unborn child was not considered in the legality of any crime done to the mother.
The law creates a two-victim rule, distinguishing the mother and child as two separate victims.
The law still stands, no matter what stage of pregnancy.
29 states already had "fetal homicide" laws in place.
The act does not overrule state laws, but relates only to federal crimes.
Lead Plaintiff: Dr. Leroy Carhart, practicing abortion doctor
Plaintiff: Dr. Jill Lynelle Vibhaker, certified obstetrician
Defendant: U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Justice Ginsburg
DISSENTING OPINION
Justice Kennedy
MAJORITY OPINION
Opinion: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act should be sustained. The intact D&E abortion procedure, discussed in the Act consist of uncertainties. There is no consistent method to complete steps in the procedure and differs by the doctor. The Act prohibits, "the purpose of preforming and overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." There are "anatomical landmarks" established and there has to be separation between the killing and the delivering of the fetus. There must be substantial evidence that it has been done intentionally and for the purpose of termination. The Act provides, "clear guidelines...[and] objective criteria," and does not impose an undue burden. "The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process...similarity to the killing of a newborn infant." There is no factual evidence that intact D&E has any health related advantages. Emotional senses from the mothers are considered and respect for the potential of life and the medical field are explored. "When standard medical options are available, mere convenience does not suffice to displace them," so the Act is upheld.
NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Charhart who preforms mainly second and third trimester abortions has been involved in many legal cases.
Carhart v. Ashcott was a Nebraska case in 2003 and Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcott in 2004, both challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court and together they established the Gonzales v. Carhart trial.
Carhart and other practicing abortion doctors argued the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was unconstitutional and caused and "undue burden" on women.
The plaintiff assumed that the Act interfered with women's "right to privacy," as established in previous cases.
Gonzales defending the Act reassured that the government has a, "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."
The problem with the Nebraska case was the fact that there was no exception for the health of mothers, but the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act provides an exception making it unrelated to the same arguments.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was written with great detail making sure to leave no room for question.
The validity of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was presented and upheld by the court.
It established regulations to the extent abortions could be preformed and allows states to put in prohibiting laws against partial-birth abortions.
http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/gonzales-v-carhart-2007
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.html
Opinion: The rights of women to terminate their pregnancies should overrule the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. From the Roe v. Wade case in correlation, the states should still not interfere with abortions. The states, "must protect the health of the women." Today women are seen as equals and have the right to reach their full potential, consequently relating to controlling their own reproductive choices. Intact D&E is the most commonly preformed second trimester abortion procedure and requires an exception for the health of mothers. The six doctors bringing evidence before Congress when making the law were unbalanced and not all had experience with intact D&E procedures. Conflicting with Congresses ruling, late-term practicing abortions doctors state the intact D&E are more safe and necessary for the health of women. The standing Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act overrules previous stipulations allowing all abortions which is they believe should still stand.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.html
Although most people would agree that the right to privacy does not extend to taking human life, some also disregard the arguments that a fetus is living.
After the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004 the federal government views the fetus as a "child in utero" with the potential to life. A person that murders a pregnant woman is charged with homicide of two people. If a fetus can be considered a victim in a murder case then they have been acknowledged as living at one point. The government must recognize them as living and therefore they must be covered under the same law as full grown humans who cannot be denied the right to life.
Others believe that the fetus gains life at four weeks when the fetus has a heartbeat.
Some veiw life begins at 24 weeks, which is considered the point of viability when the fetus can live outside the mothers womb at an 80% survival rate.
Amendments involved in the argument sate:
1st: Freedom of assembly, speech, religion, press, and petition
3rd: Restricts the quartering of troop in homes
4th: Right to no unreasonable searches
5th: Right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself and due process
9th: Rights mentioned in the constitution cannot be denied to individuals
14th: equality; no one can be denied life, liberty or property
People assume that the right to privacy is implied throughout the constitution and is mainly based on the "liberty" portion of the 14th Amendment. This is a sensible claim, but the right should not extend to cover when other lives are put at risk. For example if John decides to kill his wife in the privacy of his own home, is it okay? The answer is no. Just because someone commits a crime in private does not make it acceptable. This also extends to the termination of life in the womb. In this argument most will say that it is the woman's body and the woman's choice to do whatever she wants and neglect to recognize the life growing inside of her. Just because the child is in the mothers womb does not give her the right to abuse the power of privacy when concerning the potential life. This also is an invalid excuse when relating to the partial-birth abortion, intact D&E procedure because the fetus is killed outside of the womb which then separates the women's right to do as she pleases with her body.
FAMOUS & INFLUENTIAL
President Barack Obama
When asked his view on late-term abortions he said:
"I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that mental distress qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."
When asked about his view on abortion:
"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench."
Mitt Romney
Norma McCorvy/Jane Roe
After the influential Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal Jane Roe is still affected by it today. She said, "I think it's safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name."
Dr. Leroy Carhart
Practicing abortion doctor and lead plaintiff in Gonzales v. Carhart. The video consists of an undercover visit to one of Carhart's clinics.
MY OPINION
The ruling for Gozales v. Carhart should be upheld.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act should be sustained.
There is no actual written text that sates the "right to privacy." It is implied and that is sensible, but should not override the written right of life. The right to privacy must stop at some point and that point is before fetal demise.
Intact D&E has been proven that it is never needed medically. Purposely half-way delivering a baby to kill it is ultimately infanticide.
Life begins at conception.
"You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb.(New Living Standard; Psalms 139:13)"
GONZALES v. CARHART
Alberto Gonzales
Leroy Carhart
Supreme Court Justices
Pro-choice activist will say that the fetus is just a mass of cells and does not gain life until after birth. Assuming this is true the potential for life is still covered under the Preamble.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity
, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Posterity means all future generations. The preamble precedes the constitution and establishes that all future generations have the rights given in the constitution which includes the right to life.
Full transcript