LAW SCHOOL CASE SUMMARY OF ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Below please find my law school case summary of Roe v. Wade. I thought it would be great to share this with people who have not had the opportunity to read the actual case law. It also breaks down the case from a legal point of view giving the reader a look into a lawyer's perspective of the case. 

[Right to Unencumbered First Trimester Abortion] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

[Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.]

STATUTES THAT MAKE CRIMINAL ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT WHEN MEDICALLY ADVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY.

Facts: Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face and an injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant and that she was unable to receive a legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue: Do the Texas statutes improperly invade a right possessed by the appellant to terminate her pregnancy embodied in the concept of personal liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in the personal marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment?

Holding – Disposition: The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Roe wins – the district court judgment is affirmed.

Hallford loses – the district court judgment is reversed.

The Roes lose – the district court judgment is affirmed.

Rationale: Court opined – “The Constitution DOES NOT explicitly mention any right of privacy. [But] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have … found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the 4^th and 5^th Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights [Griswold]; in the 9^th Amendment [id.]; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment [Meyer]. These decisions make it clear that only PERSONAL RIGHTS that can be DEEMED “FUNDAMENTAL,” or “IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,” [Palko] are included in this GUARANTEE of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation [Skinner], contraception [Eisenstadt], family relationships, and child rearing and education [Pierce; Meyer].

·      This “right of privacy,” whether it be founded in the 14^th amendment’s concept of personal liberty as we feel it is, or as the District Court determined, in the 9^th , is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

·      Blackmun went on to opine that there were inherent difficulties in the court’s “denying choice altogether,” including the effects such a ruling would have on the physical and psychological well-being of the mother.

·      [In light of the inherent difficulties], “… appellants and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this, we do not agree. [A] state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and IN PROTECTING POTENTIAL LIFE… At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

·      “All this… persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the 14^th Amendment, does not include the unborn” - [Texas argues] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the 14^th Amendment. [If so], the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Use of the term “person” in section 1 of the 14^th Amendment, as well as in other parts of the Constitution, only use the term postnatally [duh]. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible “pre-natal” application.

·      “The State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct…. Each grows as the woman approaches term, and at a point during pregnancy, each becomes ‘compelling.’”

When does the interest become “compelling” for…

The mother? “[In light of present medical knowledge] It becomes compelling approximately at the end of the first trimester – until this point, mortality in abortion is less than that in childbirth.”

The unborn child [fetus]? “The compelling point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside of the mother’s womb, [the protection having] both logical and biological justifications.”

Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment of criminal abortion laws.

(1)   The first is that the laws are the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has been taken seriously by neither courts nor commentators.
(2)   The second reason is that the abortion procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to protect pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques have altered the situation, with abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first trimester.
(3)   The third reason is the State’s interest is in protecting the prenatal life. However, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot be prosecuted for the act of abortion.

Court’s Bottom Line on State’s Interests over the Fetus

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period [period starting upon the viability of the fetus], except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, “the Texas law sweeps too broadly and cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.”

Court Holding in Roe v. Wade Based on Fetus’ Stages of Development

Legal Stage 1 - For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

Legal Stage 2 - For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

Legal Stage 3 - For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, BASED UPON THE STATE’S INTEREST in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

Concurrence - Justice Stewart [other concurrences filed by Douglas and Burger.]: “The Griswold decision [in some manner resurrecting the doctrine of substantive due process killed in Ferguson v. Skrupa] can be rationally understood only as a holding that the Connecticut statute substantively invaded [“liberty”]. “The liberty protected by [due process] covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. [In Eisendadt], we recognized ‘the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’ That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Dissent – Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist: Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

Dissent – Justice Rehnquist:

·      A transaction resulting in an operation as this is not private.

·      Though the concept of “liberty” encompasses more than rights explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, deprivation of that liberty is only precluded if executed without “due process of law.”

·      Social and economic legislation [such as the one in question] is tested by analyzing whether the law challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.

·      Court’s sweeping invalidation of a first-trimester abortion is impossible to justify under “Lee Optical” test.

·      As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be “compelling.”

FAMILY - A MODERN DAY GOLDEN CALF IN THE CHURCH?

Exodus 32:23-24 "They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
If you say that God is first, then He must be first in your devotional life, your family life, and your professional life. God simply will not allow himself to be placed first on a list that we've concocted based on our own secular psychological paradigms regarding the overriding significance of family rather than on how Scripture presents family. When we visualize a spiritual hierarchy where God is first, the family is second and ministry is third, we necessarily place family as a barrier between ministry and God in our lives.
God is first - period. If He's our God, then He must be first everywhere. Ministry, to the extent that it reflects God's calling on our lives (which is the definition of ministry), forms the basis of a significant part of our daily conversations with God and to a large extent serves to identify who we are called "to be" in Him. I don't stop being a pastor when I get home. If anything, I need to be a pastor there more than I am anywhere else.
Contrary to popular Christian belief as espoused from countless pulpits around the globe, we are not placed on earth so that God can bless us. We're put here to do His will and to build His kingdom and not our own. We are here to serve others and to give ourselves away just like our Savior did before us (Matt. 20:28; John 13:6-9). It is what shows God that we truly love Him (John 21:15-17).
That said, it is so critical that we understand the part that the family plays in all of this. Below is an amazing article from Christianity Today that speaks to this, while bursting some bubbles we have long regarded as sacrosanct. It will challenge how you think about this thing we define as "Christianity".
Let's not, like Aaron, try to sell God a "bill of goods". Calves didn't make themselves then and they still don't make themselves now.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/january-february/russell-moore-putting-family-first-puts-church-odds-jesus.html
Blessings, Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq., J.D.

DEMOCRATS FLEE FROM REASON ON “THE WALL”

So what’s this “wall” stalemate really all about? One word: politics.

Okay, so when did walls become immoral? Are doors likewise immoral? What about roofs? The answer is that, at least in America, they have never been and never will be “immoral”, except within the context of talking points drafted by a party dead set on delegitimizing a president they believe they would otherwise have a hard time beating at the polls. Which, of course, is a pretty embarrassing state of affairs when that President is Donald J. Trump.

I understand the political reality here, but what really annoys me are the idiotic talking points being sold to the American public by both parties. No, we don’t have zillions of criminals looking to infiltrate our southern border. Are there at least some trying to do so? This, of course, is quite likely, though not provable. If I left a thousand dollar bill on the counter at a store, I may not be able to state, with 100% certainty, that someone will steal the bill, but I can definitively say is that it is highly likely that someone will. Which of course is the entire point behind a physical barrier – a Wall. It’s why, even in the best of neighborhoods, we have doors to our homes and why we generally lock those doors, at least at night.

Everyone knows that Democrats previously legislatively supported the construction of border walls and/or barriers as part of our overall U.S. immigration strategy. They did so because they are simply a logical part of ANY plan to protect a country’s national safety and integrity. This has been true for thousands of years. So why are Democrats so unwilling to support the exact same legislation now? The answer is simple – This stalemate is all about preventing the President from fulfilling a key campaign promise in the hope that, as a result, enough of his people will not vote for him so as to give the Democrat party a chance to take the presidency in 2020. Nothing more and nothing less.

That said, is erecting a physical barrier (fence, wall, etc.) at our southern border a national crisis at this juncture? Yes.

We recently witnessed thousands of foreigners converge on soft spots around the U.S. southern border attempting to enter into the U.S. illegally. In at least one encounter, border agents who were being attacked were forced to disperse a crowd which included women and children with tear gas. Encounters like these occur because the perpetrators believe there is at least a chance of success. Most of these immigrants are banking on our catch and release posture, where they are detained given a court date and then released into the U.S. general population with a court date. Based on the most recent data, only about 6 out of every 10 immigrants actually show up to their court date. An immovable physical barrier serves to lessen both the violators confidence and resolve while preventing the need for active and hostile physical engagement with violators by border agents which serves to endanger the safety of both the perpetrators and the officers trying to stop them.

Are Asylum claims being made generally legitimate? No.

As is made clear by countless videos taken by news agencies interviewing the recent want-to-be immigrants at the southern border, the majority are attempting to enter the U.S. not because they are fleeing real or imminent persecution in their home countries, but because those countries do not offer the financial opportunities available to citizens and legal immigrants in the United States.

As an immigration attorney who helps the immigrant community, I know this to be the case first hand. That said, do at least some of them have “reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group”? Of course. But based on our past experience [cold, hard facts], the number of immigrants that ultimately are allowed into the country after filing an asylum claim is only about 20%. Basically, 8 out of 10 asylum applications simply fail.

Another critical legal factor is that there is a discretionary bar to granting asylum to any noncitizen who has already been offered the opportunity to live permanently in a third country before entering the U.S. Mexico has in fact done that. So as a matter of law, asylum can legitimately be denied to everyone seeking asylum in the U.S. who has tried to do so from the Mexican/U.S. border.

Wasn't Mexico supposed to "pay for the wall"? Yes.

To a large extent, they are. Trump's recent U.S. favorable trade arrangement with Mexico along with Mexico's offer of asylum to these noncitizens, indirectly will help to fund the wall by virtue of tariffs collected, a reduction in the trade deficit, and cost savings resulting from Mexico's asylum grants.

In sum,

Because there is really not only NO IMPETUS for Democrats to seek a middle ground with President Trump on the all-important “wall” issue, but rather an extremely STRONG INCENTIVE TO DENY THE PRESIDENT any semblance of victory in all areas including this one at all costs, the President really has no choice, in terms of what he has to do. It appears that President Trump will have to use his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers to go around Congress and build the wall as a matter of national security, while simultaneously ending the stalemate involving federal workers. He wins on both counts with this decision.

Bendiciones, 
Mario

ANDY STANLEY - A MARCIONIC HERETIC?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." - The Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 4:3-5)

I start by saying that I am pretty shocked right now. To be honest with you, I'm actually in pain right now.

Based on the alleged quotes from Andy Stanley's preaching series called "Aftermath" below, it would clearly appear that Andy Stanley, son of the respected teacher Charles Stanley and mentor to beloved teacher Craig Groeschel of Life Church, has now embraced and is promoting the latest form of heretical Marcionism - an ancient heresy recently revived and promoted by false teachers like Darrin Hufford, writer of The Misunderstood God.

Below I am quoting excerpts from a blog that I just read written by Steven Kozar. Steven's blog seems well written, well structured and thoroughly logical. Though I do not personally know Steven, his words below are sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant distribution. I will be hearing the series myself personally in order to test the veracity of the quotes offered by Steven below:

*** BEGINNING OF EXCEPTS
"In Andy Stanley's latest series, called "Aftermath," he suggests that Christians can unhinge their faith from the Bible while attaching their faith to the historically reliable resurrection of Christ (which is something we learn about from the Bible). Along with propagating doubt in God's Word, Andy Stanley is teaching a modern version of Marcionism, which is an ancient heresy that eliminates the Old Testament. Here are some recent articles that explain this in greater detail:

Here are some direct quotes from this truly bizarre and confusing "sermon" series:

“Jesus’s most devout first-century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible, they couldn’t have read the Bible if there was a Bible because most of them couldn’t read and there was no Bible to read. And yet, these men and woman turned the world upside down, they’re the reason we’re here today worshipping Jesus but they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. Why are you so quickly persuaded to walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t exist when Christianity began?”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“In order to remain irresistible, I noticed something we needed to address. And it had nothing to do with how we do church, it had everything to do with how we talk about the Bible, and specifically what we point to as the foundation of faith, which for most Christians, unfortunately, is the Bible. ”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“Many of you-I’m in this group-we were raised to believe that the foundation of our faith is the Bible; that as the Bible goes, so goes our faith, and if some of it’s not true then none of it can be trusted; it’s a house of cards.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

It only took about ten minutes into the first sermon for Stanley to dismantle the authority of the Bible and give high praise to the sincerity and intelligence of atheists like Sam Harris, but then he spends the rest of the "sermon" talking about the ministry of Jesus and the early church while quoting from the Bible. But the obvious question should be: why is he using the Bible at all?

Here are some more direct quotes:

“The first-century Christians had a very different kind of foundation for their faith than many of us have. Many of us were raised to believe that the foundation of our belief is the Bible, but they didn’t have a Bible, the Bible wouldn’t come until the early fourth century. What they based their faith on was an event-specifically the resurrection of Jesus, and this should be the reason we choose to follow as well.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“When Paul’s eyes were opened he had extraordinary clarity around the incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The Bible teaches that God mostly loves Jews AND the Bible teaches that God loves everybody; they are two incompatible covenants.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“I’m telling you, you take Old Testament values and imperatives and you mix them with New (Testament values and imperatives), you end up with a mess, and you end up with a message that unnecessarily drives people away from the Gospel. And once upon a time this wasn’t all that big of a deal, because once upon a time nobody knew that much about the Bible and they couldn’t find out much about the Bible unless they went to a library, but now everybody is one click away from whatever information they need to dismiss their faith, including your children and grandchildren.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“(On the public display of the Ten Commandments:) Jews aren’t for this, and it’s their law. You don’t see Jewish groups saying ‘We need the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn!’ Jewish people are like: ‘It’s over, it’s over...’ and the Christians are like: ‘No! It’s not over, we wanna keep it alive!’ And the Jewish people are like ‘I don’t think you’ve read it carefully.’ Cause they’re smarter than us about THEIR scripture.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The gig is up. The truth is out there. We can’t hide anymore. So let me be super honest: We can’t hide behind the Ten Commandments anymore because everybody has discovered that the Ten Commandments aren’t the only commandments; the Ten Commandments are the table of contents for the whole Jewish law.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“Originally in my notes I was gonna put a screen up here that said ‘In other words that means thou shalt not obey the ten commandments,’ but I knew someone would take a picture of that and it would define me for the rest of my life, so I’m not gonna put that up there...”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 3, April 28, 2018"

*** END OF STEVE'S BLOG EXCERPTS

I am in utter shock in reading this. Though I knew the church was in trouble, I had no idea that this spirit of Amalek/Jezebel had already done this much damage.

We must return to fasting and prayer guys. We are fighting huge principalities here.

THE RISE OF NARCISSISTIC CHRISTIANITY

People are increasingly becoming accustomed to a certain degree of narcissism in their walk with Christ. They reject anyone who brings up anything that they disagree with or otherwise stirs up their own perceived personal worldview which they have actually unwittingly adopted from the secular media and anti-Christian university professors both in Christian and secular universities.

Questioning what someone thinks these days is often viewed as an ad hominem attack on that person. To some, though to a much smaller degree, it’s actually considered a physical attack on their person justifying a physical response. New, cute little phrases like “micro-aggressions” are now routinely used to describe statements made that are at odds with what the hearer believes and thereby challenges what they (and the entire educated world from their perspective) justifiably defend and espouse.

Unfortunately, many who describe themselves as Christian have joined the pack.  Repudiation of spiritual authority and the rejection of any spiritual guidance into their lives by those whom God is expecting to give Him an account for them, as clearly stated by the writer of Hebrews when he says, “Obey them that are over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb. 13:17), has now become the new normal. Most now reject any spiritual guidance if it includes any manner of correction or rebuke. At best, proper spiritual mentoring may include suggestions in their secular mindset, but should never fully or completely embrace the advice the Apostle Paul gave his spiritual son Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:2, when he says,

2 Tim. 4:2 (NIV)

² Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

People are now often ONLY good with one of the three instructions given by Paul to Timothy here. Namely, that we as Christians (and not necessarily as leaders) should “encourage” one another. Many utterly question and reject any person’s authority to either correct or rebuke anyone else without their express consent. They embrace Paul’s advice to the Corinthians that everything they do should be “done in love” (1 Cor. 16:14), but then reject the statement just before it in verse 13 where Paul instructs the Corinthians that they should also “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, [and] act like men, be strong.”

The bottom line is that this new and insidious religious narcissism, affecting millennials in particular and the Church as a whole, now serves as the backdrop for knowingly rejecting Biblical authority as the only objective standard of faith. Don't be mistaken. This is all about ascension. This is nothing less than dethroning God and taking His place on the throne of our hearts while believing ourselves to be correct in our elevation of self over God.

That said, this is not a new problem.  The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards years ago addressed what he then described as “religious narcissism.” He believed it to be “the essence of hypocrisy.” It remains very much that to this day.

RESIST FASCISM? HOW RIDICULOUSLY LUDICROUS.

Dear alt-left people: For the record, ignorance is not fascism.
#RESISTTHERESISTANCE

There is a legal term for what these people are engaged in. It's legally called sedition. The sad thing is that Legion (the mainstream media) is promoting this narrative, likely for ratings.

How stupid does the alt-left think people are? This entire alleged "movement" undermines the principles of a free and open democracy on which our nation was founded. Somehow these people feel they have the moral right to undermine the political will of a majority of our states (30 states) because they disagree with the policies of the party the people of the United States legally voted into power. They are doing exactly what they claimed Trump supporters would do if they lost, a contention I wholeheartedly rejected from its inception. Liars believe everyone is a liar.
Here's the truth: They couldn't win at the polls for POTUS and have lost both houses of Congress with no hope to regain the majority in sight. Soon they will likely lose Control over the Supreme Court.

So now apparently they feel compelled to incite an insurrection in order to challenge a duly elected President. This movement is engineered to get people hurt. That is the only way they believe they can emotionally turn the hearts of the people of our country so that they gain some level of sympathy toward their socialist and fascist agenda.

Here's how Black's Law Dictionary breaks it down:
SEDITION, n. (14c) 1. An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority. 2. Advocacy aimed at inciting or producing — and likely to incite or produce — imminent lawless action. ● At common law, sedition included defaming a member of the royal family or the government. The difference between sedition and treason is that the former is committed by preliminary steps, while the latter entails some overt act for carrying out the plan.