Week 5 - SDP refusing medical treatment and reproductive rights

In what circumstances can the gov't override personal liberty (not exhaustive list)?

public health, safety of others, preservation of life, protecting vulnurable patients

What was Jacobson v MA about?

state required smallbox vaccine, man sued. Gov't upheld a requirement for vaccines because herd immunity was a compelling gov't interest to stop disease spread. individual autonomy is weakest during health crisis. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

What was Buck v Bell about?

state forcibly sterilized woman in the name of "public welfare". Court upheld. Shows that there is a need for constitutional protections especially for marginalized communities. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

what was Washington v Harper about?

prison inmates forcibly medicated. Court held this was constitutional to keep prison workers and other inmates safe, and said only rational basis was needed. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

Why was only rational basis needed for Washington v harper?

court actually did recognize he had a liberty right, but that's constitutional rights are reduced in prisons.

What was cruzan v Missouri dept of health about?

Family wanted removal of feeding tube, they said person wanted it removed. Court held state law refusing to remove feeding tube was allowed as a failsafe to preserve life and avoid mistaken deaths. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

What was washington v Glucksberg about?

Terminally ill patients wanted assisted suicide. Court ruled not allowed to protect vulnurable people, combat coercion, no historical fundamental right to suicide. Refusing medical treatment ≠ asking for treatment to die/end suffering. Court used rational basis. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

Why did the court apply rational basis in wash. v glucksberg?

Because suicide/assisted suicide has never (historically) been a fundamental right. Court determined the rule should be left to the legislature. Week 5 SDP: refusing medicine

what are the "steps" the court analyzes when looking at SDP rights re: right to refuse medical treatment?

1) acknowledge liberty right exists 2) see if there is a strong gov't interest 3) defer to legislation. legislation tends to always be the "winner". court's don't want to legislate from the bench

what is rational basis?

meaning it is rationaly related to a legitimate government interest. Gov't does not need strong evidence, doesn't even need to be effective. Court assumes legislature has a good reason for it. as opposed to intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny.

What was Griswold v connecticut about?

CT banned contraceptives. Appellants said this was interferring in the privacy of their marriage. They focused on "married" couples to make it easier to assert their right. While most justices didn't use that framing, it worked, and the court held they had that right to privacy. Week 4 SDP reproductive rights.

What was eisenstadt v baird about?

allowing contraception to be used by unmarried women. Law was banning the sale of contreption. the court ruled the "values" of punishing unwanted sex by forcing people to have children wasn't a valid gov't interest, and it wasn't effective.

What was roe v wade about?

pregnant woman wanted an abortion but couldn't travel out of state. another woman couldn't get pregnant without getting sick, so she would get one. abortions were already happening, they just weren't safe. court used right of privacy to hold women could seek an abortion.

What were the asserted interests identified in the roe v wade case?

1) moral disapproval of extramarital sex was dismissed as insufficient 2) pregnancy becomes much more dangerous to women after the 1st trimester, 3) protection of prenatal life was legitimate, but there was no consensus on when "life" begins

What was planned parenthood v. casey about?

It was similar to roe, but it did allow much more considerably more regulations. the court ruled that state law was only a violation if it created an undue burden on a woman's choice to have an abortion

When did the court rule in roe v wade that a state's interest in compelling to protect fetal life?

at the point of viability (when the baby would be able to live outside of the mother's body).