Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

Preston v. Meriter Hospital in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

When a baby is born in a hospital birthing center, the newborn has come to the "emergency department" for purposes of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Thus, the hospital must provide "an appropriate medical screening examination" to any infant born at the hospital birthing center in order to determine whether the infant has an emergency medical condition.     

Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina

South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.     

美国联邦最高法院对Harper ＆ Row出版股份公司等诉Nation企业等侵犯版权案的判决

著作权(或版权)是指作者对其创作的文学、艺术和科学作品依法所享有的权利。关于著作权法或版权法为何要保护作者的这一权利的问题,学理上有不同的观点,其中以“激励说”最为引人注目。就目前世界各国著作权法的具体规定来看,“激励说”占有着相当重要的地位。依据这一学说,国家制定著作权法(或版权法)赋予作者对其独创作品在一定期限内享有垄断性或排他性的权利,其宗旨是促进本国的科技和文化事业的发展。也就是说,国家以法律保护作为手段,以期达到发展和繁荣本国文化事业之目的。因此,如何平衡作者的利益与社会的利益之间的矛盾,也就成了著作权法所无法回避的问题。毫无疑问,作者在创作过程中经过了艰苦的思维,付出了辛勤的汗水,甚至投入了大量的资金,如果其所创作的作品得不到法律的有效保护,则作者的创造性劳动就难以得到回报,作者也就缺乏创作动力。由此看来,对作品加以保护是必要的。然而,作者的所谓“独创”是在前人留下的基础上进行的,那种不依赖前人所积累的知识而进行的抽象的创作是不存在的,也是不可能的。所以,为了社会的利益,为了鼓励更多的作品的创作,并降低创作成本,从而有利于知识的学习和传播,各国著作权法在对作者的著作权施加时间上的限制的同时又规定了对作品的合理使用。