Advertising appearing at the top and bottom of these web pages
is determined solely by the web hosting company, Tripod. The House of Atreus
Website does not necessarily endorse the products or organizations advertised
here.
Return to The House of
Atreus Home Page
The House of
Atreus
Supreme Court
Center
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
SIGNIFICANT CASES CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO LIFE
I.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided numerous questions
concerning issues related to the right to life. Among its best known—and most controversial—are its decisions
concerning abortion. However, the Court
has also issued opinions relating to the death penalty, end-of-life issues, and
eugenics.
These issues ordinarily come before the Court on appeal
from either a state court or one of the Federal courts of appeals. While state supreme courts have the final
word on questions of state law, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final word on
questions of Federal law (in other words, questions concerning the application
of the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, and Federal regulations). Thus, the U.S.
Supreme Court may entertain appeals from persons unhappy with how a Federal or
state court has decided a question of federal law (for instance, a person
arguing that a state deprived him of rights that he is guaranteed under the
U.S. Constitution). Furthermore, since
the Constitution provides that the Federal law is the supreme law of the land,
the Supreme Court can also entertain appeals which argue that state law
conflicts with Federal law.
Ordinarily, one has no right to appeal to the Supreme
Court. One can only file a
petition—called a “petition for certiorari”—requesting that the Court hear the
appeal. But the Court has virtually
unlimited discretion in deciding whether to hear the case. Thus, the Court may deny an appeal on
important issues for any reason or for no reason at all.
When they do hear a case, all nine justices on the Court
may not agree on the proper way to decide it.
In such instances, the outcome of the case depends on how the majority
of Justices sitting on the case decide each issue.
The Justices explains their rationale for their decisions
in written “opinions.” When the
Justices disagree on the proper resolution of an appeal, the “majority” opinion
lays out the rationale for the majority of the Justices. Judges who agree with the result but have a
different rationale for their conclusion file “concurring” opinions, while
those who disagree with the result file “dissenting” opinions.
Links to the Court’s most significant decisions related
to the right to life appear below. For
up to the minute coverage of the Court, you can check Supreme Court News and
the U.S. Supreme Court Official Site. For those interested in background
information about pending or recent cases, the Court’s
docket, calendar,
and briefs filed by the parties are also available.
Abortion
protesting/free speech
Right to refuse
treatment/nutrition/hydration
ROE
v. WADE,
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
DOE
v. BOLTON,
410 U.S. 179 (1973)
PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF MISSOURI v. DANFORTH, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
MAHER
v. ROE,
432 U.S. 464 (1977)
BELLOTTI
v. BAIRD,
443 U.S. 622 (1979)
COLAUTTI
v. FRANKLIN,
439 U.S. 379 (1979)
HARRIS
v. McRAE,
448 U.S. 297 (1980)
H.
L. v. MATHESON, 450 U.S. 398 (1981)
AKRON
v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
PLANNED
PARENTHOOD ASSN. v. ASHCROFT, 462 U.S. 476 (1983)
SIMOPOULOS
v. VIRGINIA,
462 U.S. 506 (1983)
THORNBURGH
v. AMERICAN COLL. OF OBST. & GYN., 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
WEBSTER
v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
HODGSON
v. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
STENBERG v.
CARHART,
___ U.S. ___ (2000)
MADSEN
v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994)85
(1994)
SCHENCK ET AL. v. PRO CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK
ET AL. , 519 U. S.
357 (1997)
HILL
v. COLORADO, ___ U.S. ___ (2000)
BUCK
v. BELL,
274 U.S. 200 (1927)
VACCO
v. QUILL,
___ U.S. ___ (1997)
WASHINGTON
v. GLUCKSBERG, ___ U.S. ___ (1997)
CRUZAN
v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
PALKO
v. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
LOUISIANA
EX REL. FRANCIS v. RESWEBER, 329 U.S.
459 (1947)
UNITED
STATES v. JACKSON, 390 U.S. 570 (1968)
WITHERSPOON
v. ILLINOIS, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
BUMPER
v. NORTH CAROLINA, 391 U.S. 543 (1968)
MCGAUTHA
v. GEORGIA, 402 U.S. 183 (1971)
FURMAN
v. GEORGIA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
GREGG
v. GEORGIA, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
PROFFITT
v. FLORIDA, 428 U.S. 242 (1976)
JUREK
v. TEXAS, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)
WOODSON
v. NORTH CAROLINA, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)
COKER
v. VIRGINIA, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
LOCKETT
v. OHIO, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)
BELL
v. OHIO, 438 U.S. 637 (1978)
EDDINGS
v. OKLAHOMA, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)
ENMUND
v. FLORIDA, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)
PULLEY
v. HARRIS, 465 U.S. 37 (1984)
LOCKHART
v. McCREE, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)
FORD
v. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
McCLESKEY
v. KEMP, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
ATKINS
v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
RING v.
ARIZONA, 536 U.S. 534 (2002)
DECK
v. MISSOURI, ___ U.S. ___ (2005) (No. 04-5293)
BELL v.
THOMPSON, ___ U.S. ___ (2005) (No. 04-514)
ROPER v.
SIMMONS, ___ U.S. ___ (2005) (No. 03-633)
MILLER-EL
v. DRETKE, ____ U.S. ___ (2005) (No. 03-9659)
SATTAZAHN
v. PA, 537 U.S. 101 (2003)
Return to The House of Atreus Home Page of Form