Constitutional Issues
The Jane Hodgson v Minnesota case revolved around a State law wherebya woman below 18 could not obtain an abortion until 48 hours after herparents had been notified (Legal Information Institute 1990). Exceptionswere if the woman was a victim of family abuse or neglect; a court ofcompetent jurisdiction allowed her to proceed upon presentation of evidencethat she was "mature and capable of mature consent;" and if the abortionwas to her best interests. Concerned sectors filed a complaint at theDistrict Court that the statute violated the Due Process and EqualProtection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The District Court declared thestatute completely unconstitutional and enjoined that it be so enforced. The District Court found that requiring the notification of botheffects on both the woman and her parents if the latter were divorced orseparated or the family was dysfunctional. It agreed that the minor couldbypass the two-parent requirement because of its tediousness and theensuing loss of privacy, and, therefore, did not further the interests ofthe State in protecting the welfare of the woman. It also held that the 48-hour delay, in many cases, entailed significant ris
Jo Carol La Fleur was one pregnant teacher who had wanted tocontinue teaching up to the end of the year but was compelled to drop herjob because of the maternity rule. The High Court accepted the argumentof Seeger's lawyer that Seeger;s position would include (other) definitionsof religion and, thus, could and should accommodate his definition of it. Daisy Bates was therecords custodian of the local branch of the Association. The burdensome and restrictive regulations contradicted whatthe freedoms under the due process clause guarantees and intended/s toprotect. It pointed to three separate butrelated to bothconstitutional issues on the two-parent requirement and the 48-hour delay. The local Board required all teachers and pupils toparticipate this way to this familiar and routine activity. The Chesterfield County required its pregnantteachers to go on un-paid maternity leave for at least four months and toprovide notice at least six months before the expected childbirth. In the particular case, the Statehad the power to require and control the education of its citizens butthere was no law that compelled them to send children to private schoolssimply because of religious observances or biases in a given public school. It did not serve the State's interestsand unnecessarily penalized them for bearing children. The High Court noted that,if the District Court saw the difference between Seeger's aversion to warand his refusal to acknowledge a Supreme Being, the military board wouldhave granted him the exemption he asked for. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the City Court's conviction andruled that advancing ideas and airing grievances were protected from theundue State invasion or intrusion by the said due process clause under the14th Amendment. This soon drained thefamily's resources and the father filed this complaint, seeking that theschools be made to re-accept his children and to lift the compulsoryparticipation in the said flag ceremony. It held that theState, indeed, had a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of youngcitizens whose immaturity and inexperience, inclined them to the unwiseexercise of their rights. The High Court decided that the provisions violated due process inconclusively presuming that a pregnant teacher was physically unfit todischarge her classroom duty.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
District Court's,
District Court,
Chesterfield County,
Minersville Pennsylvania,
God Scripture,
Court City,
Process Clause,
City Court's,
Information Institute,
due process,
district court,
supreme court,
due process clause,
14th amendment,
process clause,
process clause 14th,
clause 14th amendment,
clause 14th,
maternity leave,
pregnant teacher,
required pregnant,
court appeals,
protected due process,
complaint district court,
|
Acceptance Essays
