Sandra Figueroa Olivia DiDonato Beatriz Goncalves Women and Equal Rights Sandra Figueroa Olivia DiDonato Beatriz Goncalves

Please Read the following text from the 14th Amendment and think about why it was created and of its purpose back then “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Staff, LII. “14th Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 12 Nov. 2009

How does the way we interpret this amendment now differ from when it was written?

Timeline and Explanation Roe v. Wade Griswold v. Connecticut Gonzales v. Carhart Equal Pay Act 1976 2016 1971 1963 1965 1973 2007 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Craig v. Boren Reed v. Reed

Griswold v. Connecticut 1965

Overview A Connecticut law outlawed the use of anything that would serve as contraception within a marriage Estelle Griswold: served as a the director of Planned Parenthood and was accused of violating this law She along with her Yale Medical School Assistant were fined $100 each for helping the couples The State’s prosecutor said that the law was meant to preserve “morality” Insinuated that those who were married and looking for contraceptives were committing adultery COOPER, JOSEPH H. “CT's Argument Against Birth Control: It Begets Adultery.”Courant.com, 7 June 2015

Verdict Right to privacy The Fourth Amendment protect people from having the government interfere in their own private affairs at home Justice Arthur Goldberg said that “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments” “Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).” Bill of Rights Institute.

Impact on Public Policy Verdict: The Connecticut law violated the privacy of marriage couples and it was decided that the government should not have a say in marital affairs. 1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court decided to extended the use of contraception to unmarried couples by citing this case 1977: Carey v. Population Services, struck down on laws that limited the access to birth control to women under 16 2003: Lawrence v. Texas, struck down on a law that prohibited sexual contact between those of the same gender Right to privacy in their relationships and to what occurs within a home Birth control is more easily accessible to women, which can help improve a woman’s life as well as allowing for planned pregnancies. Helped extend the access to abortion services “50 Years After the Griswold vs. Connecticut Decision.” National Women's Law Center

Reed v. Reed 1971

Overview Idaho Probate Code said that males would be preferred over females in determining the adminstration of estates Sally and Cecil Reed went to court to determine who would get their late son’s estate Because of the Code Cecil, was named the administrator Sally decided to challenge the legitimacy of the law in court “Reed v Reed .” Oyez. 15 Nov. 2017

Verdict Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all individuals must be treated equally Supreme Court, unanimously, ruled that it was unconstitutional to treat men and women differently The first time that women were granted equal protection because of the 14th Amendment “Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights - Milestones to Equality.” The Supreme Court History, Supreme Court Historical Society.

Impact on Public Policy The case showed that times were changing 1961: Hoyt v Florida ruled that there was no constitutional issue with prohibiting women from serving in a jury The case opened the door for both men and women to challenge gender discriminatory laws because it was the first case in which the fourteenth amendment was used to defend women’s rights The granting of marital property to men Providing of welfare benefits to a family only to child if mother died 1975: Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld ruled that widowed fathers could receive social security benefits The exclusion of women from military colleges “Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights - Milestones to Equality.” The Supreme Court History, Supreme Court Historical Society. “Reed v. Reed at 40: Equal Protection and Women's Rights.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law . American University. 15 Nov. 2017

Roe v. Wade 1971

Overview In the 1970s, Texas law outlawed abortion , making it difficult for women to acquire abortions. In 1971, Norma McCorvey, under the pseudonym Jane Roe, was a pregnant, unmarried woman, who wanted an abortion, but the Texas law prohibited her from getting one. Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade (Texas) to challenge the abortion laws in place. “Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions On Women’s Rights .” ACLU Timeline, ACLU, 2017.

Verdict Roe argued that her 14th Amendment rights were violated by not allowing her to an abortion. Violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It was her right to decide if she wanted an abortion and felt that the state couldn’t decide what was best for her. She also used elements from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. In 1973, the decision was in favor of Roe, and that women could freely acquire abortions during the first trimester of the pregnancy. 46 states were affected by the ruling Pregnancies after the second and third trimesters were decided by individual states. "Roe v. Wade." Oyez, 15 Nov. 2017,

Impact on Public Policy This case used the 14th Amendment to decide the ruling Women themselves can decide what to do, not the law. The right of privacy, granted in the Due Process Clause. This ruling decided that the government can’t be in the way of rights granted to women (and men) in the 14th Amendment. Helped rulings in future cases dealing with abortion and the 14th Amendment. Before this case, most states didn’t allow abortion.

Craig v. Boren 1976

Overview In in the 1970s, Oklahoma law stated the limit of the sale of “non intoxicating” alcohol for men under 21 and women under 18 is 3.2%. The law created different drinking ages for men and women The law mostly affected beer vendors In 1972, Curtis Craig challenged that law, saying the law was discriminatory and violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Big Question; does the Oklahoma law violate the Equal Protection Clause? The Equal Protection Clause states that every citizen should have equal protection under law. “Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights.” The Supreme Court History, Supreme Court Historical Society

Verdict It was decided that the Oklahoma law was unconstitutional because the law was different for both men and women. The court found it violated the Equal Protection Clause. It was seen as gender discrimination. The 3.2% vendors were affected by the ruling. First case in the Supreme Court to deal with gender discrimination by using intermediate scrutiny. Craig v. Boren." Oyez, 15 Nov. 2017

Impact on Public Policy This case used the 14th Amendment as well as the Equal Protection Clause to help decide the ruling for this case, as well as other gender-related cases. This helped further women’s rights because before this ruling, there was debate if gender based issues were subject to scrutiny. Craig vs Boren challenged intermediate scrutiny. Oklahoma discriminated against gender classifications which calls for intermediate scrutiny. Napikoski, Linda. "Craig v. Boren." ThoughtCo, Mar. 11, 2017

Gonzales v. Carhart 2007

Background Planned Parenthood v Casey(Jun. 29, 1992)- The Supreme Court imposed a new standard to determine if a law restricts abortion rights. Undue Burden-"substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Stenberg v. Carhart (June 28, 2000)- The Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska's law was unconstitutional because it imposed an “Undue Burden” on the doctors and women who seeking abortions. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744

Overview Carhart filed another case against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Partial-Birth abortion- When the fetus dies outside of the womb. Partial-Birth Ban Act (2003)- Banned a wide range of abortion procedure done in the second trimester. Carhart argues that this Act…. 1. Would impose an “ undue burden” on the right to an abortion because it was vague. 2. It was unconstitutional because it didn't have an exception for women with health risks. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-380

Federal District Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional on both grounds. Government appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision.

Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother? (Oyez.org)

Verdict Court ruled by a 5:4 vote that the Act was not unconstitutional and that it did not impose an “undue burden” on women. The Court ruled that the Act was not unconstitutionally vague because it only applied to the intact D&E. The Court also ruled after finding the intact D&E procedure never to be medically necessary, a health exception was not necessary.

The Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart reversed Stenberg v The Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart reversed Stenberg v. Carhart Imposed restrictions on abortions Allows for there to be other restrictions on abortion Impact

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 2016

Overview House Bill (2013)- Texas passed the HB2 law that posed restrictions on abortions. A violation would result in a $4,000 fine. Forbids any abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless there is a health exception Physicians are required to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is located no more than 30 miles away Physicians are required to provide pregnant woman with a telephone number by which a physician can be reached 24 hours a day for assistance with complications. Abortion facilities are required to meet minimum standards adopted for ambulatory surgical centers https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274

These restrictions resulted in closure of the majority of the clinics in Texas. Whole Woman’s Health filed a lawsuit challenging two of the provisions. They argued that the law imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.

Should a court's "undue burden" standard take into account the extent to which laws that restrict access to abortion services actually serve the government's interest in promoting health?

Verdict In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the HB2 was unconstitutional “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

Clippage

This case was a win for women This case was a win for women. It emphasized the fact that women have the right to abortions and that we shouldn’t put restrictions on it. Impact

Citations “50 Years After the Griswold vs. Connecticut Decision.” National Women's Law Center “Background and Summary Questions” Landmark Cases.org. Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society, 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2017. COOPER, JOSEPH H. “CT's Argument Against Birth Control: It Begets Adultery.”Courant.com, 7 June 2015 “Craig v. Boren." Oyez, 15 Nov. 2017 “Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).” Bill of Rights Institute. 15 Nov. 2017 “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”Oyez, Nov. 15 2017

Citations “Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights - Milestones to Equality.” The Supreme Court History, Supreme Court Historical Society.15 Nov. 2017 “Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions On Women’s Rights .” ACLU Timeline, ACLU, 2017. Web. 13 Nov. 2017. “Reed v Reed .” Oyez. 15 Nov. 2017 “Reed v. Reed at 40: Equal Protection and Women's Rights.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law . American University. 15 Nov. 2017 "Roe v. Wade." Oyez, 15 Nov. 2017 “Gonzales v. Carhart.” Oyez, 15 Nov.2017