Anmerkungen:
In English
Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web
Beschreibung:
Choice Outstanding Academic Title 2003 Personal rights, such as the right to procreate-or not-and the right to die generate endless debate. This book maps out the legal, political, and ethical issues swirling around personal rights. Howard Ball shows how the Supreme Court has grappled with the right to reproduce and to abort, and takes on the issue of auto-euthanasia and assisted suicide, from Karen Ann Quinlan through Kevorkian and just recently to the Florida case of the woman who was paralyzed by a gunshot from her mother and who had the plug pulled on herself. For the last half of the twentieth century, the justices of the Supreme Court have had to wrestle with new and difficult life and death questions for them as well as for doctors and their patients, medical ethicists, sociologists, medical practitioners, clergy, philosophers, law makers, and judges. The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans offers a look at these issues as they emerged and examines the manner in which the men and women of the U.S. Supreme Court addressed them
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. “Fundamental” Rights versus State Interests -- I. “I Am Not Talking Very Much Like a Lawyer” -- II. The U.S. Supreme Court and “Fundamental” Rights -- III. The Liberty and Rights Protected by the Due Process Clause -- Case Study: U.S. v Carolene Products, 1938, Footnote 4³⁶ -- IV. Is There a Protected Liberty Interest for Persons Having Intimate Homosexual Relations? -- Case Study: Bowers v Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)⁵º -- Case Study: Roy Romer, Governor v Richard Evans, et al., 1996⁵⁴ -- V. The Limits of Sexual Privacy -- VI. Summing Up -- 2. Marriage and Marital Privacy -- I. “I Should Like to Suggest a Substantial Change for Your Consideration” -- II. Heterosexual Marriage -- Case Study: Skinner v Oklahoma, 1942⁴¹ -- III.Molecular Changes in the Definition and Reality of the Traditional Marital Relationship -- Case Study: Griswold v Connecticut, 1965⁵º -- IV. The Dilemma of Intimate Violence and Congressional Passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 1994 -- Case Study: Joshua DeShaney, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, et al., v Winnebago County,Wisconsin Department of Social Services, et al., 1988⁵⁹ -- Case Study: U.S. v Morrison, 1999⁷⁵ -- V. Same-Sex Marriage -- Case Study: Stan Baker, et al. v State of Vermont, et al., 1999⁹⁴ -- VI. Congressional Passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1996 -- Case Study: Nina Baehr v Miike, 1996, 1999¹º³ -- VII. Summing Up -- 3. The “Rhapsody of the Unitary Family”¹ -- I. “Something Smells about This Case” -- II. Who Is Family? -- Case Study: Village of Belle Terre v. Bruce Boraas, 1974²³ -- III. Family Privacy Rights versus State Interests -- Case Study: Reynolds v U.S., 1878²⁸ -- Case Study: Michael H. v Gerald D., 1989 -- IV. Family Privacy Rights versus Personal Autonomy and Other Constitutional Rights -- Case Study: Eisenstadt v Baird, 1971 -- V. Summing Up -- 4. Motherhood or Not, That Is Her Decision -- I. “I Will Be God-damned!”³ -- II. Not Having Children: Abortion as Personal Right -- Case Study: Roe v Wade, 1972¹¹ -- III. After Roe, What Are the Limits of “State Actions” That Regulate the Abortion Procedure? -- Case Study: Webster v Reproductive Health Services, 1989 -- IV. After Roe, What Are a Husband’s Rights? -- Case Study: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 1992 -- VI. Back into the Vortex: The “Partial Birth” Abortion Controversy -- Case Study: Stenberg v Carhart, 1999 -- VII. Summing Up -- 5. Raising the Child “Father Knows Best”?