Abstract
This paper explains that, in 1973, a pregnant women identified as 'Roe' brought a class action before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the criminal abortion laws in Texas, which banned seeking or attempting an abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. The paper relates the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions as presented by each judge. The paper concludes that the principle of this case is within the framework of the Fourteenth Amendment due process rights of an individual and whether those rights were being violated by the statutes of the States of Texas and Georgia relating to the right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion.

Table of Contents:
Character of Action
Facts
Issues
Decision
Majority Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Justice Blackman
Justice Stewart
Chief Justice Burger
Justice Douglas
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Rehnquist
Justice White
Comment
Principle

From the Paper
"In this case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statutes of the state of Georgia and Texas were overly restrictive in relation to the rights of the pregnant woman and the control that the woman has over her own life to choose to follow through with a pregnancy and particularly in relation to health status. Of the Justices that dissented in this matter, it was held Justice Rehnquist that at the time of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment there were 36 laws that placed restrictions on abortions and that there was not, within the framework of the Constitution a right to an abortion."

Tags:justiciable protection, due process, framework, fourteenth amendment

Abstract
This paper explains that the "Bowers vs. Hardwick" decision meant that engaging in homosexual acts between consenting adults, even in the privacy of their homes, could be considered a criminal offence; the exercise of such law by certain states did not constitute a violation of one's fundamental rights or liberty under the Due Process Clause. The author points out that the decision in "Bowers vs. Hardwick" conflicts with several other previous and similar right-of-privacy decisions of the Court, including "Griswold vs. Connecticut" (1965). The paper relates that "Bowers vs. Hardwick" was overruled by the courts 16 years later.

From the Paper
"Briefly, the facts of Bowers v Hardwick reveal that Michael Hardwick was a bartender in a gay bar in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1982, a houseguest of Hardwick unknowingly let a police officer enter Hardwick's home. The officer went to the bedroom where Hardwick was engaged in oral sex with his partner. The men were arrested and charged with violating the Georgia statute that criminalizes sodomy. Charges were later dropped, but Hardwick brought the case forward in the Federal District Court with the purpose of having the sodomy law declared unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of the defendants for the claimant's failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision on the grounds that the Georgia sodomy statute violated the respondent's (Hardwick's) fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia statute was constitutional and reversed."

Tags:proscriptions, right-of-privacy, griswold, blackman, connecticut