Social_Phobia

Abortion (A) Abortion is an extremely controversial issue. When such cases are brought to court it becomes extremely difficult for judges to decide when and how abortions can be justified as legal. When ruling on cases judges decisions can be classified as judicial restraint or judicial activism. Judicial restraint emphasizes the limited nature of courts power. Judges refuse to go beyond the words of the constitution and interpreting its meaning. When applying the philosophy of judicial restraint judges rely solely on the concept of stare decisis, which refers to an obligation for courts to follow previous decisions. When applying judicial activism courts go beyond the words of the constitution in order to address changes in society. These decisions are derived from implied powers. In the case Roe v. Wade courts definitely acted using the philosophy of judicial activism. Judges argued that women have the right to privacy with their doctors; therefore they are allowed to make such decisions without the interference of the government or any other party as long as certain guidelines are followed. The right to privacy is not written in the constitution, but is implied and recognized by United States courts. Therefore by protecting women’s privacy the court used Judicial Activism agreeing the right to privacy is implied within the constitution. Although judicial restraint is much more common than judicial activism controversial issues such as abortion require courts to evaluate certain cases while weighing societal norms and implications. When abortions were illegal many women still received such operations out of desperation from unlicensed persons, subjecting themselves to unsanitary equipment and dangerous procedures. This apparent danger became recognized by courts resulting in laws that enabled women to receive adequate health care if necessary in order to protect their health. Still many people believe abortions are immoral and refuse to acknowledge that these procedures are acceptable under any circumstance. Recently Texas legislature passed a bill requiring women to receive sonograms before carrying out these medical operations. This was another act of judicial activism attempting to reduce the amount of abortions carried out. Still because of stare decisis, and judicial restraint, the new bill is being contested because of the invasion of privacy. Abortion (B) I agree with lleana’s response. The issue of abortion is extremely controversial, and both sides are very compelled that they are correct. This battle has created many questions on what is moral or immoral. Because the decision is very difficult judges must make decisions from a very neutral perspective. Making neutral decisions can be extremely tough when addressing abortion because whether such procedures are acceptable is truly in the eyes of the beholder. Judicial restraint reduces the influence of individuals’ opinions by influencing courts to review previous cases through the philosophy of stare decisis. This means “let the decision stand.” As the issue becomes more controversial and new judges are appointed to the Supreme Court with great influence whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, the first ruling still remains as prominent as before. This reduces the power of executive appointments, and protects our country from one sided laws. Through judicial activism judges are able to create guidelines to reduce or increase the number of abortions aloud. One of these laws addresses when a fetus is actually alive. These types of laws are similar to amending a bill. Although many people were dissatisfied with the decision made in Row vs. Wade they are still able to voice their opinion and see changes through judges acceptance of cultural norms. We The People: An Introduction to American Politics, Eight Edition, Benjamin Ginsberg http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm "The Right of Privacy: Is It Protected by the Constitution'" UMKC School of Law. Web. 05 Dec. 2011.