|
|
|
Use this tool to learn about websites, specifically the one you just entered.
If you find some aspect of it inappropriate it is not our fault.
If you are the owner of this website: yes we are a real search engine, we do have a real web crawler called FyberSpider and you can block it if you feel the urge.
We are in the process of updating this tool. Until we are done just use our search results to check the inclusion status of your site.
Submit your site to major search engines within 48 hours.
Find out if your site has been cataloged by top search engines for only $8.99.
Below you will see site info taken directly from the URL you entered in real time. This is also known as our URL Breakdown tool and can be used independently of our site info tool.
ROE v. WADE
This is just a sample of the content found on this website. Please visit the website to read the entire page.
"ROE v. WADE
Decided January 22, 1973
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court .
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST , dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART , concurring.
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging
the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which
proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical
advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed
physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions
pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married
couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked
the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of
contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood,
and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court,
which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and
members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable
controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive,
relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes
void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint
not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on
the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District
Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford. Held:
1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to
this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone,
review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the
Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and
the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are
necessarily identical. P. 123.
2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp.
123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination
of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her "
....
read entire page
|
Links to Pages on the Same Domain Name
|
|
