Question: What type of meeting place does Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Raich have in common?

Context paragraphs:
Robert Raich: Robert Raich is a California attorney.  He served as legal counsel in the only two medical cannabis cases heard by the United States Supreme Court: United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in 2001 and Gonzales v. Raich in 2005.  His spouse at the time, Angel Raich, was a party in the 2005 case.  In 1995, he became one of the founders of California Proposition 215, the initiative that created the first medical cannabis framework in the United States.  Raich has been an instructor at Oaksterdam University, where he teaches "how to create defenses against possible hostile action by the government" for students of the cannabis industry.

Gonzales v. Raich: Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Taylor v. United States (2016): Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Court relied on the decision in "Gonzales v. Raich" which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Human Life Amendment: The Human Life Amendment is the name of multiple proposals to amend the United States Constitution that would have the effect of overturning the Supreme Court 1973 decision "Roe v. Wade", which ruled that prohibitions against abortion were unconstitutional.  All of these amendment proposals seek to overturn "Roe v. Wade", but most of them go further by forbidding both Congress and the states from legalizing abortion.  Some of the proposals define human life as beginning with conception or fertilization.

Gonzales v. Carhart: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged.  The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."  The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.  "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion.  Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.

Catholic Church and abortion politics: Before the 1973 "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.  The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization.  Prior to "Roe v. Wade" decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.

March for Life (Washington, D.C.): The March for Life is an annual rally protesting abortion, held in Washington, D.C., on or around the anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in the case "Roe v. Wade".  The march, whose stated mission is "to provide all Americans with a place to testify to the beauty of life and the dignity of each human person", advocates in overturning "Roe v. Wade".  It is organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

The Girls Who Went Away: The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade is a 2006 book by Ann Fessler which describes and recounts the experiences of women in the United States who relinquished babies for adoption between 1950 and the "Roe v. Wade" decision in 1973.

Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) , is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion.  It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, "Doe v. Bolton".  The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.  Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Supporting paragraphs: Roe v. Wade Gonzales v. Raich
Answer: Court