Roe V. Wade not about abortion but about privacy........Has everyone looked into what that means and the powers striking down this ruling......

[PotimusWillie]

the bans on women traveling to other states to get reproductive care are gonna make america great again I guess.

Why would they have to go to another state for care of the baby? They will just have to go if they want a traumatic surgery to kill the baby.

They can always stay home, use contraception and be a sperm bucket for as many sperm donors as they want. The donation is the fun, uncontrollable part, right?

Sex is awesome. No one is telling women not to have sex. I have often wondered why a lesbian is concerned about abortion. Seems kinda odd.

I think respecting the sanctity of life is making America great again. Nothing wrong with expecting human beings to be responsible.

Unless killing conceived life IS the point.

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

other issues this will affect. Thomas has already said

"Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there. Emboldened anti-privacy advocates are already turning their attention to restricting access to other areas of reproductive health, marriage rights, and any number of issues that should be considered personal and off limits.

Also, some states are even pushing "Personhood Bills" that say life begins at contraception. This is personal to me because I had my son via IVF. In states where PB are enacted fertility clinics will particularly go out of business due to the embryos that are formed during the IVF process will now be considered "people" and due all the same protections. Thomas in is concurring opinions has said contraception and gay marriage should be relooked at...what limits are there now from government intervening into individual personal life.

Regardless of your personal opinion on abortions how can you have individual freedom without privacy from the government?

Commentary: Overturning Roe v. Wade is more than just an assault on reproductive rights

Reproductive rights could be the first of the privacy rights to disappear for many Americans–but it won’t stop there.

fortune.com

I can accept an argument for keeping abortion legal, but the original R v W verdict was an overreach. Roe vs Wade was legislation from the bench at its finest. Abortion should be regulated through the legislative process, not the courts.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

😂

The (faux) outrage!

View embedded media

If he’s against it, I’m for it

 

[shonuff253]

I can accept an argument for keeping abortion legal, but the original R v W verdict was an overreach. Roe vs Wade was legislation from the bench at its finest. Abortion should be regulated through the legislative process, not the courts.

How was it an overreach?

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

How was it an overreach?

“Life, liberty, and a women’s right to choose” didn’t make the cut in the Bill of Rights.

 

[shonuff253]

“Life, liberty, and a women’s right to choose” didn’t make the cut in the Bill of Rights.

No serious questions, what about Roe was judicial overreach?

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

No serious questions, what about Roe was judicial overreach?

Abortion was not expressly protected (or prohibited) by the constitution. Associating abortion with a vague privacy clause is legislation from the bench. There is no way to argue that the framers of the constitution meant for abortion to be a “protected” action with a straight face.

 

[nice marmot]

Which parts of the US Constitution limit women's rights, or "consign women to second class citizenship?"

The fact that their condition was left to the states, as was citizenship of slaves, etc. And many of the states are backwards-ass places. We required a shooting war to guarantee the right of liberty to women and non-whites, 14, and then another few decades after that to guarantee full suffrage, 19. Roe was decided under the pretenses of the 14th - right to unimpeded liberty / due process / and privacy derived thereof.*

If you want to codify the unborn's right to life, that would require another amendment as, while the state has an interest in the preservation of life, the right to life is given to citizens "born" in the United States and to "persons", which a fetus is not. What -was- codified or otherwise "settled" - was the right to privacy, which is now in doubt.

The US Supreme court went off the rails, imho, when it designated personhood to corporations. Thereafter, everything has been backsliding. And it will continue to do so...

* (The 14th and 19th don't go far enough imho. ERA now.)

 

[nice marmot]

Abortion was not expressly protected (or prohibited) by the constitution. Associating abortion with a vague privacy clause is legislation from the bench. There is no way to argue that the framers of the constitution meant for abortion to be a “protected” action with a straight face.

privacy is pretty well understood as a fundamental aspect of liberty, undergirding the constitutional right to be left alone.

you could argue, with a straight face, that the framers thought bondage best for all but adult white males, so let's move on how 'bout we?

 

[PotimusWillie]

The fact that their condition was left to the states, as was citizenship of slaves, etc. And many of the states are backwards-ass places. We required a shooting war to guarantee the right of liberty to women and non-whites, 14, and then another few decades after that to guarantee full suffrage, 19. Roe was decided under the pretenses of the 14th - right to unimpeded liberty / due process / and privacy derived thereof.*

If you want to codify the unborn's right to life, that would require another amendment as, while the state has an interest in the preservation of life, the right to life is given to citizens "born" in the United States and to "persons", which a fetus is not. What -was- codified or otherwise "settled" - was the right to privacy, which is now in doubt.

The US Supreme court went off the rails, imho, when it designated personhood to corporations. Thereafter, everything has been backsliding. And it will continue to do so...

* (The 14th and 19th don't go far enough imho. ERA now.)

So it’s the civil war’s fault? Or by creating states we have harmed women? I am confused.

The constitution was written to allow for state representation of the taxpayer. The state doesn’t make the laws, the taxpayer does.

That seems to be forgotten in the realm of centralized gov conversations. It is what makes the Constitution the greatest document man has ever written.

If you want freedom and representation.

 

[cherrydawg]

The fact that their condition was left to the states, as was citizenship of slaves, etc. And many of the states are backwards-ass places. We required a shooting war to guarantee the right of liberty to women and non-whites, 14, and then another few decades after that to guarantee full suffrage, 19. Roe was decided under the pretenses of the 14th - right to unimpeded liberty / due process / and privacy derived thereof.*

If you want to codify the unborn's right to life, that would require another amendment as, while the state has an interest in the preservation of life, the right to life is given to citizens "born" in the United States and to "persons", which a fetus is not. What -was- codified or otherwise "settled" - was the right to privacy, which is now in doubt.

The US Supreme court went off the rails, imho, when it designated personhood to corporations. Thereafter, everything has been backsliding. And it will continue to do so...

* (The 14th and 19th don't go far enough imho. ERA now.)

God begs to differ. Why do dims hate the unborn? The pro abortion crowd has a silly small minded argument saying well the baby can’t live without the mother for whatever number of weeks. Big deal. The babies that are not murdered can’t live without the mother or an adult for several years. So if that is your argument then you will agree that children can be murdered for several years. Also, the unborn human baby has eyes and a heartbeat before most women even know they are pregnant. Yet pro baby murderers maintain they are not humans. God knows them. You can deny it but that is just an excuse, maybe to soothe the conscience or it could be to fool the weak minded.

Also, I’m sure all the murdered girl babies are excited about your support of female rights. SMH

 

[cherrydawg]

privacy is pretty well understood as a fundamental aspect of liberty, undergirding the constitutional right to be left alone.

you could argue, with a straight face, that the framers thought bondage best for all but adult white males, so let's move on how 'bout we?

Only spin Doctors that don’t understand it that way.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

😂

The (faux) outrage!

View embedded media

What a POS this Macron turd is.

 

[shonuff253]

Abortion was not expressly protected (or prohibited) by the constitution. Associating abortion with a vague privacy clause is legislation from the bench. There is no way to argue that the framers of the constitution meant for abortion to be a “protected” action with a straight face.

No you're missing the forest for the trees. They aren't saying abortion was made legal due to vague privacy clause, they're saying there is no right to privacy stipulated in the Constitution at all. But it's been upheld until now that the right to privacy is implied throughout the document.

"Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:

• First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.
• Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.
• Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
• Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
• Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.
• Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc."

Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment? - FindLaw

Protecting your privacy rights starts with becoming familiar with the constitutional amendments, federal statutes, and state laws designed to keep your private information private. This FindLaw article provides a look at right to privacy amendments.

www.findlaw.com

So how can you have individual freedom and the right to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not expect privacy from the government?

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

No you're missing the forest for the trees. They aren't saying abortion was made legal due to vague privacy clause, they're saying there is no right to privacy stipulated in the Constitution at all. But it's been upheld until now that the right to privacy is implied throughout the document.

"Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:

• First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.
• Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.
• Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
• Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
• Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.
• Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc."

Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment? - FindLaw

Protecting your privacy rights starts with becoming familiar with the constitutional amendments, federal statutes, and state laws designed to keep your private information private. This FindLaw article provides a look at right to privacy amendments.

www.findlaw.com

So how can you have individual freedom and the right to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not expect privacy from the government?

Does the right to privacy ensure you have the right to import any prescription drug if the FDA has banned it? Does your right to privacy ensure a doctor can assist you in committing suicide? I am a supporter of both of these issues (and the fascist Trump supported the right to try experimental treatments btw) but I understand the government regulates these issues.

The idea that RvW was decided as a privacy issue was absurd and even intellectually honest supporters of abortion understand the ruling was a farce. Imo, public pressure will force most states to enact limited abortion laws and we'll likely end up with laws that mirror most European countries. All you have to do is look at polling to figure out we are going to end up with abortion on demand thru 12 to 15 weeks and regulation for any beyond that number.

 

[shonuff253]

Does the right to privacy ensure you have the right to import any prescription drug if the FDA has banned it? Does your right to privacy ensure a doctor can assist you in committing suicide? I am a supporter of both of these issues (and the fascist Trump supported the right to try experimental treatments btw) but I understand the government regulates these issues.

The idea that RvW was decided as a privacy issue was absurd and even intellectually honest supporters of abortion understand the ruling was a farce. Imo, public pressure will force most states to enact limited abortion laws and we'll likely end up with laws that mirror most European countries. All you have to do is look at polling to figure out we are going to end up with abortion on demand thru 12 to 15 weeks and regulation for any beyond that number.

As for prescription drugs question that's covered The Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Again that's not true. Roe is primary about privacy and not abortion.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy"

 

[cherrydawg]

As for prescription drugs question that's covered The Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Again that's not true. Roe is primary about privacy and not abortion.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy"

So keeping it quiet makes baby murder acceptable in your mind?

 

[shonuff253]

So keeping it quiet makes baby murder acceptable in your mind?

OMG that's not what I meant. The SCOTUS isn't saying women deserve privacy so they can get an abortion..........they are saying their is NO assumed right to privacy given by the constitution. That opens a whole can of worms when you talk social media privacy, employee/employer privacy, privacy in your home, and medical privacy.

So say the Jehovah Witnesses someone how won political power in GA. Because GA state constitution doesn't specifically give the right to privacy....could the JW administration outlaw blood transfusions? Could they outlaw organ transplants? Possibly yes with this ruling.

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

OMG that's not what I meant. The SCOTUS isn't saying women deserve privacy so they can get an abortion..........they are saying their is NO assumed right to privacy given by the constitution. That opens a whole can of worms when you talk social media privacy, employee/employer privacy, privacy in your home, and medical privacy.

So say the Jehovah Witnesses someone how won political power in GA. Because GA state constitution doesn't specifically give the right to privacy....could the JW administration outlaw blood transfusions? Could they outlaw organ transplants? Possibly yes with this ruling.

Yes, they could, but they won't. Almost no one thinks blood transfusions and organ transplants are bad; therefore no legislative body will outlaw them. Obviously, abortion is controversial and people are passionate on both sides, so whether abortion on demand will remain legal in your area depends on where you live. For most of the country, it will remain legal but more regulated.

 

[poorpreacher]

So far I've heard

It's a privacy issue
It's a medical issue
It's a racial issue
It's an economic issue

Seems like people will classify abortion any way possible, in order to justify them.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

OMG that's not what I meant. The SCOTUS isn't saying women deserve privacy so they can get an abortion..........they are saying their is NO assumed right to privacy given by the constitution. That opens a whole can of worms when you talk social media privacy, employee/employer privacy, privacy in your home, and medical privacy.

So say the Jehovah Witnesses someone how won political power in GA. Because GA state constitution doesn't specifically give the right to privacy....could the JW administration outlaw blood transfusions? Could they outlaw organ transplants? Possibly yes with this ruling.

Probably could outlaw it but it wouldn't stand for multiple reasons. As mentioned above many medical supplies, procedures and medications are regulated as well as many private activities. Privacy was simply a ruse the Court used to perform a political function rather than a legal function.

 

[shonuff253]

Yes, they could, but they won't. Almost no one thinks blood transfusions and organ transplants are bad; therefore no legislative body will outlaw them. Obviously, abortion is controversial and people are passionate on both sides, so whether abortion on demand will remain legal in your area depends on where you live. For most of the country, it will remain legal but more regulated.

So what about social media privacy or employee/employer privacy? There are two issues here; Privacy and Abortion. The privacy issues is the one where there's most potential for huge unintended consequences. If this ruling was strictly about abortion.....fine but it's not. For this court to say the constitution gives no inherit right to privacy but yet say all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. How can you have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the assumption of privacy?

As far as abortion goes, 93% of abortions in this country are performed within the first tri-mester so before week 13. I'm totally ok with a cap of 20 weeks for an abortion. My issues comes when you have individuals who want to out right ban abortion all-together and even in cases of rape or incest. That's an extreme view point and one not supported by the majority of Americans

 

[shonuff253]

Probably could outlaw it but it wouldn't stand for multiple reasons. As mentioned above many medical supplies, procedures and medications are regulated as well as many private activities. Privacy was simply a ruse the Court used to perform a political function rather than a legal function.

Your medical supplies are covered under the Commerce Clause that states the federal government/Congress can regulate sales with other nations and between states. You can still buy FDA unapproved medication but your insurance isn't going to pay for it so your right to purchase isn't illegal.

And the privacy question isn't just about abortion or a "ruse the court used". Tell me this....how can you expect to have freedom from the government without privacy?

 

[shonuff253]

the bans on women traveling to other states to get reproductive care are gonna make america great again I guess.

Exactly. Abortion tourism is about to be a booming business. I can remember my Uncle used to drive charter buses from Atlanta to Biloxi for people to visit the casinos. I imagine in the coming year a similar bus service for out of state abortions.

 

[Zonadog]

Here's the thing, it's not childish or hyperbolic after today because this what Thomas and sure Alito think....they said it today. So same sex marriage and equal protect for LGBTQ is going to come back up to the SCOTUS because of this ruling. This is why I made this post because a lot of people don't realize it's not about abortion but the erosion of privacy rights in this country.

Clarence Thomas ~ “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

I would highly recommend reading Thomas' opinion itself, rather than what a couple of columnists think about it. You'll get a lot closer to what he actually said and did not say.

Relying on columnists in today's environment is like asking a Cadillac dealer to tell you why the Cadillac is the greatest automobile ever conceived. They will tell you, with a mixture of facts, opinions and predictions, but you should know that they started with their conclusion in mind, and read everything in that light.

 

[MCinATL]

How was it an overreach?

I'm not a lawyer or a Supreme Court Justice, so I will refer you to one named Ginsburg who explained, at the University of Chicago School in 2013 (among other places):

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

 

[Zonadog]

I'm not a lawyer or a Supreme Court Justice, so I will refer you to one named Ginsburg who explained, at the University of Chicago School in 2013 (among other places):

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Later, during her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Ginsburg offered the following summary of her position:

The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.