What was the name of the case that overturned Roe v. Wade?
A. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
B. Griswold v. Connecticut
C. Lawrence v. Texas
D. Gonzales v. Carhart
And don't give me any rude comments. One of these has to be the correct answer. None of the above is not one of the choices, and my teacher said the question is written correctly.
- cyanne2akLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Roe v. Wade was never overturned, it was merely modified. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the modifying decision.
Your teacher is incorrect, and please show her this message if she has questions. The basic rule behind Roe v. Wade STILL STANDS. It has been refined and modified by later decisions, but again, it is NOT overturned, and any Constitutional Law professor would tell you the same. Casey merely modified the rules as it applies to certain conditions. Teens and late term abortion are discussed at length. Please read these opinions carefully. They are difficult reading even for attorneys. However, your teacher is completely incorrect in his/her assertion that the question is written correctly. Roe v. Wade was NEVER overturned.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
On remand from the Supreme Court and the court of appeals, the district court allowed applicants to reopen the record in their constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act (Act), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3203-3220 (1990), and continued its order enjoining the Commonwealth from enforcing various provisions of the Act. After the court of appeals held that the district court's order was inconsistent with law set forth by the Supreme Court and the court of appeals, the Court declined to stay the mandate of the court of appeals. The Court analyzed three factors to determine whether such application should be granted: likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay were not issued, reasonable probability that the Court would grant certiorari, and a fair prospect that the applicants would ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court found that, if applicants' allegations were proven, the first factor would support a stay, but that the other two factors pointed against such a ruling. The Court ruled that the court of appeals' opinion was not such an arguable departure from the Court's mandate as to warrant discretionary review or an award of the relief the applicants sought.
Griswold v. Connecticut:
Defendants appealed from their convictions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-32 (rev. 1958) as accessories. They contended that the application of the accessory statute, which was Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-196 (rev. 1958), violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, as did the state supreme court. On further appeal, the Court first held that as accessories, defendants had standing to challenge the substantive law and to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. In examining the United States Constitution, the Court found a right of privacy implicit in the Third Amendment's prohibition against the quartering of soldiers, the Fourth Amendment's right of people to be secure in their persons, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination, and the Ninth Amendment's right to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The right of privacy to use birth control measures was found to be a legitimate one. Thus, the Court concluded that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-32 (rev. 1958) was unconstitutional. (This dealt with a doctor, in a health clinic, selling birth control to married persons in violation of the Connecticut statute.) Convictions were reversed.
Lawrence v. Texas:
Consenting adults have a right to privace in their own dwellings. A neighbor heard 2 adult males engaging in sexual intercourse & reported it to police. Police entered the residence under the guise that they thought someone was in danger and arrested Lawrence and his partner for Sodomy. The conviction was overturned on a notion of privacy between consenting adults in their own home, however no such guarantee exists in the constitution. Instead, the 4th Amendment merely protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures".
Gonzales v. Carhart:
Lower courts erred in finding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1531, unconstitutional on its face; the challengers failed to demonstrate that the Act, as a facial matter, was void for vagueness or that it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. This placed no limitation that did not already exist, from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upon the Roe v. Wade rule.
- rickinnocalLv 71 decade ago
One of them does NOT "have to be correct", and none of them are.
The "closest" answer would be Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which resulted in some of the specifics of Roe being modified - but it certainly didn't overturn it - Roe v Wade is still "good law".
- Anonymous4 years ago
There is a chance that it could happen. The Supreme Court has become more conservative in the past two years. Since Sandra Day O'Connor retired, she was often the swing vote in decisions, the court now has the power to do it because a majority of the justices are Republicans.
- fdm215Lv 71 decade ago
Roe v Wade still stands.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- whatagal828Lv 61 decade ago
Roe vs. Wade has not been overturned, mercifully.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Sorry, I don't do people's homework for them.