Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

FMSC487 EXAM 3

Terms in this set (47)

Buck v. Bell (Virginia, 1927)
FACTS: Carrie Buck, 18 (pregnant because she was a "slave" and one of the boys who is supposed to be her brother raped her), a "feeble-minded" daughter of a "feeble-minded" mother, was institutionalized and when her daughter was born, Virginia sued to have her sterilized at the urging of Eugenics
ISSUE: Did the Virginia statue, which authorized sterilization, deny Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protect of the laws as protected by the 14th Amendment?
HOLDING: NO. The court found that the statute did not violate the Constitution. Voting 8-1, when asked to balance the substantive due process rights of a feeble minded woman committed to State institution "it is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime/let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... three generations of imbeciles are enough
Griswold v. Connecticut (US 1965)
FACTS: Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and Buxton, a licensed physician who served as Medical Director for the League, were arrested and charged with giving information, instruction and medical advice to married persons on means of prevention conception. They were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. They appealed saying that the accessory statue as applied violated the 14th amendment. Claimed standing based on their professional relationship with the married people they advised.
ISSUE: Does the Constitution provide a privacy right for married couples?
HOLDING: Yes- The Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" in the Constitution by looking at the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments to demonstrate that the government should stay out of private business, especially something as private as the decision to have a child.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (US 1972)
FACTS: An appeal from a conviction by the Supreme Court for dispensing contraceptives to an unmarried woman attending a college lecture.
ISSUE: Can the state discriminate between parties on the basis of marital status in regulating the distribution of birth control devices?
HOLDING: No- it violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment (decision had nothing to do with privacy).
• The deterrence of premarital sex cannot be reasonably regarded as the purpose of the law, because the ban has at best a marginal relating to the proffered objective
• If health is the rationale of the law, it is both discriminatory and overboard
• The right to obtain contraceptives must be the same for married and unmarried individuals
Roe v. Wade (1973)
FACTS: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant women's life.
ISSUE: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy abortion?
HOLDING: YES. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the 14th Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest during the second and third (look at viability) trimesters. 46 states in the nation had to change their laws.
Laura G v. Peter G (2007)
FACTS: Wife sues husband (non-biological father) for child support at time of divorce. Husband says he didn't consent to the invitro, which conceived the baby. But both signed a consent form at the facility. Wife picked the characteristics that looked like the Husband from the donors they had to choose from.
ISSUE: Did the he consent? Should he pay child support for the child?
HOLDING: Yes, Husband's consent can be proven by the document. He never said no. It is in the child's best interest for him to pay child support.
Astrue v. Capato (US Supreme Court, 2012)
FACTS: Husband had cancer so he froze his sperm. He wrote a note that clarified that if he dies that wife can do with the sperm what she wants to do. She ends up having twins with the sperm after he passes away. She wants to get benefits from social security like other people do upon death but she is denied.
ISSUE: Can the twins receive Social Security benefits?
HOLDING: NO, the statue does not apply because the children were born after the father passed away.
Davis v. Davis
FACTS: Junior files for divorce from Mary after several failed courses of attempted IVF using Junior's sperm with Mary's eggs. All issues in the divorce were resolved except who would have control over the remaining cryogenically preserved embryos stored at a facility. Junior wanted them destroyed. Mary wanted to use them herself or donate them to another infertile couple. There was no agreement.
ISSUE: What should be done with the fertilized eggs?
HOLDING: Would only be reasonable for the wife to be entitled to the embryos only if she had no other way of reproducing. Child support would not be required from the father (court rules in favor of the father)
Baby M Case
FACTS: Surrogate mother does not want to perform under the contract of surrogate
HOLDING: Contact was void and the father got the baby
Levy v. Louisiana (1968, US S Ct.)
FACTS: A state law prohibited unacknowledged illegitimate children the right to recover for the wrongful death of their mother. The state justification was administrative simplification of proceedings by relying on "formal papers"
ISSUE: Does this law violate equal protection?
HOLDING: YES
Penn State- Jerry Sandusky
HOLDING: Convicted on 45 out of 48 charges of sexual abuse of ten boys. Sentences to 30 to 50 years in prison
Earl Bradley the Delaware Pediatrician
HOLDING: 421 charges brought against by 130 patients mostly parents of toddlers. Got 14 consecutive life terms and 164 years in prison. After the first conviction the hospital created a settlement fund for the parents to avoid having to testify
Johnson v. State (FL, 1992)
ISSUE: Can a drug addicted mother be changed with a delivery offense of delivering a controlled substance to a baby during the time umbilical cord was still transmitting fluids containing remnants of the drugs? (Basically can she be charged as a drug dealer for "giving" her baby drugs?)
HOLDING: No. Law not intended for this purpose- no delivery of a drug. Criminal laws should be strictly construed
Connecticut v. Scruggs (2006)
HOLDING: Appellate court overrules conviction of felony child abuse when son committed suicide
In Re DH
FACTS: Father rapes daughter and beats son, lost custody but moved to CA and now wants custody back, claims the abuse is culturally acceptable.
HOLDING: State disagrees with him, abuse is not culturally acceptable, can't have custody
In re Tuttendario (PA, 1912)
FACTS: State asks court permission for 7 year old to be committed to the state so that he could receive appropriate medical treatment. Suffered from rickets cause his legs to be misshaped. Per medical testimony, operation could largely correct the program but without it he'd become crippled and unable to care for himself. Parents refused to consent to operation and doc couldn't proceed without it or committing a battery
HOLDING: Court reviewed legislation back to 1860 but refused to overturn parent's decision. No state intervention because it is not life threatening
Sets with similar terms