“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between
Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802
[After citing the above quote from Jefferson] “Coming as this does from an
acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, [Jefferson’s words]
may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect
of the amendment thus secured.” Supreme Court, Reynolds v. U.S. 1879
“In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between
church and State.’" Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Ed. 1947
ISSUE: Did the New Jersey statute violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
providing government financial support for religious
education?
COURT DECISION: No. The Court (5-4) reasoned that
providing transit for children was akin to providing fire
and police protection for parochial schools.
Transportation had nothing to do with the religious
mission of the schools.
ISSUE: The First Amendment forbids the government
from establishing a religion. Does the daily, voluntary
reciting of a prayer in school by students violate this
part of the Constitution?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that
the prayer violated the First Amendment’s
“establishment clause” because they believed the
government was encouraging religious beliefs in
students.
“When the power, prestige and financial support of government is
placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive
pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing
officially approved religion is plain.”
ISSUE: Does making state financial aid available to
religious schools violate the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment by creating too much
government support for religious activities?
COURT DECISION: Yes. The Court ruled 8-0 that the
financial aid for parochial schools aided the teaching
of religion, and that the "continuing state
surveillance" needed to ensure the law was being
carried out properly would “entangle” the government
with religious practices.
THE “LEMON TEST”
To be constitutional, a statute:
1) must have "a secular legislative purpose"
2) must have principal effects which neither advance
nor inhibit religion
3) must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
At issue in Wallace vs. Jaffree
At the commencement of the first class each day in all grades in
all public schools the teacher in charge of the room in which each
class is held may announce that a period of silence not to exceed
one minute in duration shall be observed for meditation or
voluntary prayer, and during any such period no other activities
shall be engaged in.
ISSUE: Does a law which authorizes schools to
establish a moment-of-silence violate the First
Amendment’s “establishment clause?” Was the
Alabama law unconstitutional?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that
the Alabama law was an endorsement of religion.
Schools were telling children “you should pray.” The
court believed that the Alabama law sent a message
to students that the government favored prayer.
In order that the right of every pupil to the free exercise of religion
be guaranteed within the schools and that the freedom of each
individual pupil be subject to the least possible pressure from the
Commonwealth either to engage in, or to refrain from, religious
observation on school grounds, the school board of each school
division shall establish a daily observance of one minute of
silence in each classroom of the division.
During such one-minute period of silence, the teacher responsible
for each classroom shall take care that all pupils remain seated
and silent and make no distracting display to the end that each
pupil may, in the exercise of his or her individual choice, meditate,
pray, or engage in any other silent activity which does not
interfere with, distract, or impede other pupils in the like exercise
of individual choice.
ISSUE: Does a prayer at a public school graduation, led
by a clergy member (minister, rabbi, etc.), violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 5-4 that the situation
in this case creates "a state-sponsored and statedirected religious exercise in a public school.” The
requirement that students stand silently and respectfully
represented an indirect and subtle coercion to support
religion.
ISSUE: Does a school board policy of permitting student-led,
student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment?
COURT DECISION: Yes. In a 6-3 decision the Court held that the
District's policy violates the Establishment Clause. The Court
concluded that the football game prayers were public speech
authorized by a government policy and taking place on government
property at government-sponsored school-related events and that
the District's policy involved both perceived and actual government
endorsement of religion at school events. Such speech is not
properly characterized as "private.” In dissent, Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas, noted the "disturbing" tone of the Court's
opinion that "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public
life."
ISSUE: Since the school’s policy of offering a “limited public
forum” to community groups was open to other groups holding
events in the interest of community welfare — such as Boy Scout
meetings — did the school’s concern about the Constitution’s
establishment clause justify their denying the club’s application?
COURT DECISION: No. The court ruled 6-3 that the school did not
have a legitimate concern regarding religious establishment and
that the club’s free speech rights had been violated.
The school day begins with the Lord’s
Prayer. All students must say the prayer
aloud under threat of suspension.
A prayer is read aloud by the principal
each morning during announcements.
The morning announcements include:
“We will now have a moment of silence
so that students may pray if they wish to
do so.”
At high school graduation, a minister
leads the graduating class in a prayer.
ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES VIOLATE THE “ESTABLISHMENT
CLAUSE” OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
A school that allows clubs to meet in the building
during the evening also allows a Bible study group.
A group of students and parents meet every
Monday morning at the flagpole to pray together.
A student bows his head and prays during the
daily moment of silence.
A group of students say grace at lunch in the
cafeteria.
A student says a silent prayer before a test.
ALL OF THESE ACTIONS ARE ALLOWED AND PROTECTED BY THE
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
• Prayer in public schools? No
• Prayer in Congress? Yes
• Public school chaplain? No
• U.S. Army chaplain? Yes
• “Advance” religion? No (Lemon)
• “In God We Trust” on money? Fine
"[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments,
instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have
had a contrary operation.”
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
“One timeless lesson is that if citizens are subjected to state
sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own
duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable
conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, majority opinion, Lee v Weisman
“…Almighty God hath created the mind
free…” (Jefferson, 1786)
“…no law respecting an establishment of
religion…” (First Amendment, 1791)
“…a wall of separation between church
and state…” (Jefferson, 1802)
NO
• “… indirect coercive pressure…” (Engel v. Vitale)
• “…indirect and subtle coercion…” (Lee v. Weisman)
• “…excessive government entanglement in religion..”
(Lemon v. Kurtzman)
• “…actual or perceived government endorsement of
religion…” (Santa Fe Ind. School Dist. v. Doe)
ISSUE: Does the First Amendment protect the right to
urge people to disobey the government?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court upheld
Schenck’s conviction in a 9-0 ruling. "The question in
every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring
about the substantive evils that Congress has a right
to prevent."
When a person’s “speech” creates a situation
that is a “clear and present danger” to other
people or the nation, it is NOT PROTECTED by
the First Amendment.
ISSUE: Did Brandenberg’s speech represent a “clear
and present danger,” or was it a statement of opinion
that should be protected by the First Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that
Brandenberg’s speech, while offensive, was not likely
to lead to immediate lawless action and was therefore
NOT a “clear and present danger.”
ISSUE: Does the New Hampshire law prohibiting a
person from using offensive language toward another
in a public place violate the First Amendment’s
protection of free speech?
COURT DECISION: Some forms of expression--among
them obscenity and fighting words--do not convey
ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment
protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting
words, i.e., words that "inflict injury or tend to incite
an immediate breach of the peace."
ISSUE: Mr. Johnson was convicted for disrespecting
the American flag by burning it. Should the First
Amendment protect someone who hates this country
and wants to express such beliefs? Should the
expression of certain beliefs be against the law?
ISSUE: Mr. Johnson was convicted for disrespecting
the American flag by burning it. Should the First
Amendment protect someone who hates this country
and wants to express such beliefs? Should the
expression of certain beliefs be against the law?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that
the Texas law forbidding flag burning was
unconstitutional because the law made it a crime to
express certain political views.
Gregory Lee Johnson was
convicted and sentenced to jail…
…not for larceny (stealing)…
…not for arson…
…but for expressing his political
views.
ISSUE: Can school officials prohibit the expression of
certain beliefs if the method of expression does not
disrupt school activities or interfere with the rights of
other students? Should students be allowed to
discuss controversial topics at school?
COURT DECISION: The
Supreme Court ruled in favor
of the Tinker children. The
Court stated that “students [at
school] are entitled to freedom
of expression of their views.”
“When a student is in the classroom, cafeteria, the
playing field, or on campus during authorized hours, he
may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects
like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without
materially and substantially interfering with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the
operation of the school and without colliding with the
rights of others.”
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Tinker vs. DesMoines
ISSUE: If Fraser was an adult giving his speech in the “real
world,” he would have offended people but he would not have
been punished by the government. Do students in school have
less freedom of speech than adults in the outside world? Does
the First Amendment’s protection of free speech mean that
school officials cannot limit obscene and vulgar speech in
school?
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 7-2 that the school
has the authority to prohibit offensive speech at a
school assembly. The Court stated that while students
have a right to express their views, schools have a
duty to teach students socially responsible behavior.
1. Did the school have authority over Frederick’s
behavior?
2. What was the meaning of Frederick’s message?
3. Can schools prohibit the expression of messages
that promote the use of illegal drugs at school.
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 5-4 against
Frederick. Schools can censor messages promoting
drug use.
Watch the
CNN video.
Listen to oral
arguments.
(34:00)
ISSUE: Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail
protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech
guarantee?
COURT DECISION: No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that
obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
The Court developed a test to determine whether material is
obscene.
(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary
community standards' would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient [sexual] interest. . .
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.”
“I shall not today attempt further to define the
kinds of material but I know it when I see it. “
Justice Potter Stewart
1. A person who tries to persuade others to overthrow
the government of the United States?
2. A Ku Klux Klan group who burns a cross on one of
the members’ private property?
3. A man who makes a speech on a street corner and
creates a public disturbance that might lead fights?
4. A group of protesters who are peaceful but very
offensive and their ideas make other people angry?
5. A person who burns the American flag to show how
much he hates the United States?
6. School students who express their views on issues
without causing problems in the classroom or
school?
7. School students who express their views on issues
and disrupt the orderly environment of the school?
8. Students who use vulgar, obscene or profane
language at school?
10. Can the government pass a law that prohibits the
display of certain symbols if those symbols make
other people angry?
11. Can a public school teacher leads students in
prayer at the beginning of class each day?
12. Can a group of students pray at the flagpole
before the school day begins.
13. Can four friends say grace together before lunch
in the school cafeteria?
14. Can a state law forbid a group of witches from
meeting and casting spells?
15. Can a city law require the mayor to be a Christian?
What are the basic legal
rights of someone
accused of a crime?
List the basic rights a
person should have when
they are stopped by police,
after they are arrested,
while they are awaiting
trial, during the trial, and
after the conviction.
What are the basic legal
rights of someone
accused of a crime?
• To be arrested based on evidence of a crime.
• To know what you are being accused of.
• To challenge your detention.
• To have a fair person (judge) conduct your trial.
• To have counsel (a lawyer) to help you.
• To not be forced to confess.
• To be treated humanely while awaiting trial.
• To have a trial soon after your arrest, but giving both sides enough
time to prepare for the trial.
• To be tried in public, not in
secret.
• To be able to question witnesses
and evidence against you during
the trial.
• To present witnesses and
evidence on your behalf.
• To have your guilt determined by
a fair group of people (typically a
“jury of your peers”).
• To receive a punishment that fits
the crime.
• To appeal the court’s decision.
• To be treated humanely during
time of imprisonment.
What are the basic legal
rights of someone
accused of a crime?
DUE PROCESS = FAIR TREATMENT
UNDER THE LAW
PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS
• The procedures or methods
that the government must
follow in order to treat
someone fairly.
• Places limits on executive
and judicial branches.
• Examples: right to a lawyer,
confront witnesses, appeal
outcome.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS
• Fundamental fairness under the
law. The substance of the law must
be just and reasonable.
• It’s “between the lines.”
• Places limits on the legislative
branch.
• Examples: reproductive privacy,
marry person of your choice,
forced sterilization, equal
treatment.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
“No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
“...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.”
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
Government authorities (police, principals, etc.)
cannot search you or your belongings (house, car,
bookbag, luggage, etc.) without a reason to believe
you are doing something illegal.
…no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Law enforcement authorities cannot get a search
warrant from a judge without “probable cause,”
reason to believe that they will find evidence useful
in a criminal investigation.
Good reason to believe criminal
evidence will be found.
When conducting a search, if police have “probable
cause,” they can search:
• You
• Anything “in plain view”
• Anything within your immediate control (“in arm’s
reach”)
ISSUE: Dollree Mapp was engaged in
criminal activity. The police found evidence
of a crime in her house. Should the police
be able to use that evidence in court to
convict her of a crime?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court
ruled 6-3 in favor of Dollree Mapp. They
determined that Mapp’s right to privacy
had been violated by an unconstitutional
search. The Court realized that because of
this ruling, criminals would sometimes be
allowed to go free.
“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that
sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more
quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse,
its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”
EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Evidence obtained in an
unlawful search may not be used as evidence in
court. (It must be excluded from the trial.)
GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION: Evidence
collected by police “in good faith” can be
used in court.
ISSUE: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the
right to a lawyer, but lawyers are expensive
and not everyone can afford one. Should a
poor defendant have the help of a lawyer?
Does everyone accused of a crime deserve to
have a lawyer?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled
9-0 in favor of Clarence Gideon. They said it is
an “obvious truth” that a person cannot have a
fair trial without a lawyer. They ruled that a
court must appoint a lawyer to a defendant
who doesn’t have one. The decision
established guarantees of procedural due
process for criminal defendants.
In both Mapp v. Ohio and Gideon v. Wainwright
the Supreme Court made it clear to law
enforcement authorities that they must ensure
“fundamental fairness” in the process used with
criminal suspects.
This doctrine was crystallized in the case of
Miranda v. Arizona.
ISSUE: Does the police practice of interrogating
individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel
and their protection against self-incrimination violate the
Fifth Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that
Miranda’s constitutional rights had been violated by the
police. The burden is on the police to use a procedure
that is "effective to secure the privilege against selfincrimination." If a suspect does not know he has “the
right to remain silent” then his confession cannot be used
as evidence against him. Miranda’s conviction was
overturned.
With Miranda the Court established what it called the
“fundamentals of fairness” standard, and signaled that
convictions made without meeting this standard would
likely be overturned.
• Means “may I have the body.”
• The right to challenge the restriction of your liberty.
• Represents a check by the judiciary against the
executive.
• Origins in ancient Anglo-Saxon law. Predates the Magna
Carta (1215).
• Part of the original U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it.
ISSUE: Who has authority over War on Terror detainees?
Do the federal courts have jurisdiction, thus giving the
men access to the civilian court system? Or, must the
courts defer to the executive authority to capture, hold
and try enemy soldiers during a war?
COURT DECISION: In both cases the Supreme Court
ruled 6-3 that “enemy combatants” held at Guantanamo
Bay prison have the right to challenge their detention
before an impartial judge. The right to habeas corpus is a
fundamental right guaranteed to citizens (Hamdi) and
non-citizens (Rasul, et al).
Furman
in ause
four of
year
moratorium
on the use
of the cases
death
ISSUE:resulted
Does the
the
death penalty
in these
penalty
as 37cruel
statesand
rewrote
legislation
to ensure due
process inof
the
constitute
unusual
punishment
in violation
use of the sentence.
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
In 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court ruled 7-2 that the death
penalty is constitutional if certain criteria are used to fairly apply the
COURT
DECISION: Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court
sentence.
officially ruled that the death penalty is cruel and unusual
punishment. In several different opinions totaling over
200 pages, the Justices explored many aspects of the use
of the death penalty. Only two believed it is
unconstitutional in all circumstances. The arbitrary nature
with which capital punishment is applied in the U.S. was a
major issue, as was the racial bias against black
defendants.
“As a young man, I was a death penalty supporter. Then I spent years as a
prosecutor and pursued dangerous felons in court, including murderers. In
the trenches of a criminal courtroom, I learned firsthand that our system of
justice is very imperfect. While it’s a good system designed with the highest
ideals of our democratic society in mind, like most of human experience, it
is subject to the fallibility of those who participate in it. I saw people who
were poorly served by their counsel. I saw people wrongly accused or
mistakenly identified. I saw discrimination. In bearing witness to those
things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penalty was the only
way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed.”
Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy
April 25, 2012,
signing his state’s repeal of the death penalty
ISSUE: Does it violate the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” if a
city government takes away private property and transfers it to a
private company in the hope that development of the property will
lead to economic improvement for the city. Does the “public good”
outweigh the right of private property ownership?
COURT DECISION: In a very unpopular decision, the Court ruled 5-4
in favor of the City of New London. The Court determined that taking
private property to sell to a private developer was “public use” under
the Fifth Amendment. “Public use,” according to the majority, did not
mean that the land was literally to be “used” by the “public.” “Public
use” could be more broadly defined as having a “public purpose.”
ISSUE: Does the Second Amendment mean that individuals have a
right to own firearms, or only “people” as part of an organized militia
such as the National Guard?
COURT DECISION: In both cases the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that
the right to bear arms is an individual right.
HELLER: Second Amendment protects individual right to own
firearms for self-defense.
MCDONALD: The right is "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of
ordered liberty" and “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and
tradition.” Since it is a “fundamental right” it can be incorporated to
the state’s under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
THINGS TO CONSIDER
• Every person has a right to life.
• A person has a right to control of his or her body.
• A woman’s body is “a vessel for new life.”
• At some point, the government has an obligation to
protect the life of a developing human being.
• At what point in the development of a new life does the
government take control of “the vessel” away from the
woman?
• Use of birth control to prevent conception.
• Use of Plan B (levonorgestrel) following unprotected
sexual intercourse. (without prescription)
• Use of Plan B only with doctor’s prescription
• Abortion during embryogenesis (the first eight weeks of
pregnancy).
• Abortion during early fetal development, but before
viability (8 weeks - ???)
• Abortion after fetal viability.
• Late term abortion of fully developed fetus.
ISSUE: 1879 Connecticut law criminalized the use of or
encouraging the use of birth control methods.
“Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for
the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than
forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days."
“Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or
commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and
punished as if he were the principle offender."
QUESTION: Does the Constitution protect a married
couple’s “right to marital privacy” in making decisions
about reproduction?
QUESTION: Does the Constitution protect a married
couple’s “right to marital privacy” in making decisions
about reproduction?
COURT DECISION: Yes. In a 7-2 decision the Court found
that the right to marital privacy is a “fundamental right”
and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights contains
“penumbras” (shadows) that protect the right to privacy.
• Freedom of association (First Amendment)
• Protection from government intrusion into one’s house (Third
Amendment)
• Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Fourth
Amendment)
• Freedom from self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment)
• Due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
• Other rights not listed (Ninth Amendment)
QUESTION: Does the Constitution protect a woman’s
right to terminate her pregnancy through abortion?
COURT DECISION: Yes. In a 7-2 decision the Court found
that the privacy rights identified in Griswold protected a
woman’s right to choose abortion in the first trimester of
her pregnancy. The Court defined different levels of state
interest in the second and third trimesters.
• In the first trimester, the government could treat abortion only as a
medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician
• In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as
legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother
• After viability, the potential of human life could be considered as a
legitimate state interest, and the state could choose to "regulate, or even
proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was
protected.
1986 Missouri Law
•
•
•
•
The “life of each human being begins at conception.” (preamble)
Unborn children have equal rights
State funds cannot be used for abortion counseling
Abortions cannot be performed by state employees or in
publically owned facilities.
• Doctors must perform “viability tests” beyond twenty weeks.
QUESTION: Did the Missouri restrictions
unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment??
COURT DECISION: No. The Missouri law did not infringe
on constitutional rights. The Court insisted this ruling did
not overturn Roe.
1988 & 1989 Pennsylvania laws
•
A married woman was required to get permission from her husband
before obtaining an abortion (informed consent).
•
A female minor was required to get permission from one parent (with a
“judicial bypass” available in some cases).
•
All women seeking an abortion were required to wait 24 hours between
their visit with the doctor and the performance of the abortion.
QUESTION: Can a state legislate these requirements
without violating the rights established by Roe?
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Planned
Parenthood. Pennsylvania laws imposed an “undue burden” on the
pregnant woman. (“substantial obstacle in the path of a woman
seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." )
FETAL VIABILITY (def): The potential of the fetus to
survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced.
In Webster, Casey and other cases, the Court examined
the question of fetal viability and concluded the following:
• Fetal viability differs on an individual basis based on fetal
weight, size and condition of the uterus, the general health and
nutrition of the mother, the availability of medical resources.
• Viability can only be determined by a physician.
• Determining viability is imprecise and is dependent on many
variables.
• The point of viability will change with advances in medical
technology.
• Legislative provisions that establish viability (usually 20 or 24
weeks) are unenforceable and unconstitutional.
• Use of birth control to prevent conception.
• Use of Plan B (levonorgestrel) following unprotected
sexual intercourse. (without prescription)
• Use of Plan B only with doctor’s prescription
• Abortion during embryogenesis (the first eight weeks of
pregnancy).
• Abortion during early fetal development, but before
viability (8 weeks - ???)
• Abortion after fetal viability.
• Late term abortion of fully developed fetus.