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...