Answer:
Explanation:
Although it has been attempted to overturn the ruling in the Helling case, I would suppose that these attempts have been unsuccessful because the ruling was in favor of a higher standard of care than what was deemed appropriate by for the ophthalmologists. One might argue that the ruling has remained in place because holding the defendants liable was, in a way, a step towards checking the medical profession’s privilege to set it’s own standards. I feel as though legislature has probably not seen fit to reinforce it because the original ruling remains valid in that a doctor can follow all of the standards of care, and still be liable.
The Supreme Court has not become more restrictive in protecting the right to privacy, so this claim is false.
We can arrive at this answer because:
- The Supreme Court understood that the right to privacy is essential to protect citizens, especially those involved in marginalized situations.
- For this reason, the Supreme Court decided to expand the privacy rights and not restrict them as shown in the question above.
This supreme court attitude is intended to promote greater protection for individuals who are marginalized and who may suffer intolerant and life-threatening attacks.
More information:
brainly.com/question/1145825?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
the answer is C. the U.S Constitution
EX
The U.S constitution is not to be confused with The declaration of independence with separated the united state from great Britain. this document employs a new and strong central government
Answer: look both sides before taking the turn
Explanation:
