Roe v. Wade

                     This case was about a women who named herself as Jane Roe (not her real name).She was not married and she was pregnant.Roe lived in Texas.Roe wanted to have an abortion but ,in Texas there was a law that women could not have abort a fetus unless they had a medical reason.Roe did not agree with this law because she thought it violated the 14 amendment and she then suit against Wade and Roe ended up wining the case.
                      The Bill of Rights infers a right to privacy because in the 2nd amendment it says "right to bear arms''.This means you can make desions for all your personal belongings.The amendment  1,2,3,4,5,9 and 14 include the right to privacy.
                      The court decision was 7-2 in favor of Roe. The court said that the Texas law violate the right to privacy for the doctors and their patients inferred under the 1st,3rd,4th,5th,9th,and 14th amendments.
                      The arguments that Roe had was that the government can't take away your freedom with out a good reason. The argument that Wade had was that they need to respect the life of the fetus because the fetus has equal protection too.
                       Roe v. Wade and  Planned parenthood v. Casey was the same because they both wanted to have abortions but they couldn't .In other words both cases were different because in Roe v. Wade they didn't want to let her have an abortion because they wanted to save the fetus life because it has equal protection too and they would only let her abort if it is to save the life of the mother. In Planned parenthood v. Casey they had many rules in order for her to have an abortion.

UC Regents v. Bakke

         
        The case was about a medical school of the university of california.Allan Bakke was a white male that applied to the medical school but was rejected.The university then admitted other applicants with lower scores. Bakke then took his case to court because he wanted the universtity to admitt him in that medical school because he thought they were violating the 14 amendment.
        The legal question was should the was be consider in any admission process?And if the special programs violated the 14 amendement ''equal protection''?
        The university argued that their system of admission had served important purposes. For example it helps with the effects of discrination in the society.In the other hand Allan Bakke argued that the special admission program violated the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment and that it excluded him on basis of race.He wanted to be accepted to the university.
        The court decided that Bakke should be addmitted to the medical school. The court said that schools can't use race as the only plus factor for admission.The school can balance between racial or other groups.UIKeyInputRightArrow
                                                      

         In my opinion, the affirmative action program does violate the 14 amendement ''equal protection'' because race should not be considered when doing admissions decision.They schould instead pick the top student and not leave one out because they have to many students of the same race.
        Gratz v. Bollinger decion was 6-3 for Gratz.For Fisher v. Texas the decion was 4-3 for texas because it did not violate the 14 amendment