The birth control movement before Roe v. Wade

This essay synthesizes the history of the birth control movement in the US and describes changes in sexual behavior, social values, and public policy in order to provide a context for the changes in human reproductive public policy. After an introduction, the essay outlines the history of contraception from the early nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries. Part 3 covers the period of World War I to the Depression when civil libertarians and eugenicists began to question the suppression of contraception and Margaret Sanger organized her clinics. The fourth part of the essay carries the history forward to the end of World War II, a period in which Dr. Clarence J. Gamble began to expose the marketing of defective contraceptive methods and to illustrate the willingness of poor women to accept contraceptives. The social changes which began in the 1950s are the subject of the fifth section of the essay. During this period, Roman Catholic opposition to contraception lessened, and social scientists began to focus world attention on overpopulation. Frank Notestein was appointed the first head of the Office of Population Research at Princeton, and John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council which conducted research into the IUD and began to attempt to influence population growth in nonindustrialized countries. This period also saw the development of the oral contraceptive. The changes of this era were institutionalized in 1967 when the federal government took a positive stance towards family planning in its Social Security Amendments. The decade of the 1970s is the subject of the last part of this essay. This period saw the Supreme Court assign a constitutionally protected right to abortion and Congress pass the Helms Amendment which denied the use of foreign aid funds for abortions. Challenges to the right to individual birth control practice continued during this period, and debate centered around the specter of overpopulation, the threat of adolescent pregnancy, and perceptions of "family values."     

Ex-Justice Campbell: The Case of the Creative Advocate

It can be argued that so‐called appellate judicial distinction sometimes results from a Justice basking in the positive reaction to a decision that may be based in part—or even in totality—on arguments raised by counsel. If this is true, who, then, is the distinguished figure? The successful advocate is one who can persuade an appellate court as to the soundness of the position he or she takes. The Justice gets the credit, while the attorney gets the fee. But is there more to being a great advocate besides winning cases? This article examines aspects of John Campbell's career, in what may be called “the case of the creative advocate.” It will focus in particular on the greatest case he ever argued, the Slaughterhouse Cases, ¹ and will draw on the recent book I coauthored with Ronald Labbé. ²     

The Indian Outflow Water-dock before the 5th Century A.D.,Based on the Case Study of Sardulakarnavadana

Water clock is a vital instrument to tell the time in ancient societies. The Indian water clock stayed in a stereotype since the 5th century A.D., till the entering of British, both in literature and people＇s life.     

Louis D. Brandeis: Advocate Before and On the Bench

On January 3, 1916, members of the Chicago Bar Association listened attentively as one of the country's best-known attorneys and reformers rose to speak to them. No one in the audience, not even their guest of honor, knew that within a few days the President of the United States would nominate him to become a member of the United States Supreme Court. In his speech that day, Louis Dembitz Brandeis spelled out his views on the problems confronting law in a rapidly changing society, and placed much of the blame for social unrest and popular disrespect for the law on judges who refused to recognize the economic and social developments taking place all around them:     

A Challenge to Presidential Wars: Smith v. Obama

From World War II to the present time, presidents have exceeded constitutional and statutory authority in exercising the war power. In doing so, they violate the rule of law, the principle of self-government, and the system of checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution expressly rejected the British model that placed with the Executive exclusive authority over external affairs, including taking the country from a state of peace to one of war. The Framers assigned that power solely to Congress. A lawsuit filed in 2016, Smith v. Obama, asked a federal district court to decide whether President Obama may engage in war without receiving express authority from Congress.