Roe v Wade rested (RIP) on the idea of a fundamental right to privacy, even though no such right is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
(The Constitution also does not explicitly say that we have a right to travel. Going somewhere?)
Samuel Alito's majority opinion essentially denies that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Yet the Chief Justice calls a momentary slip in the Court's privacy "egregious." Double standard?
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", but apparently not to mandate measures that fight pandemics.
The consequences of getting poked by a needle are obviously much more serious than the consequences of getting poked by a penis, in the Court's opinion.
Paul4747
Level 8
May 6, 2022
1
I find it especially telling that some of these states outlawing abortion make no exception for cases involving rape or incest. So rapists get to pass on their genes to the next generation. I'm sure there are my morons out there who will see that as an incentive to commit their crimes. How incredibly perverse!
@actofdog You and your sister have every right to be freaked out by this. I'm stunned by it.
Yes it is but the so-called Justices don't give a tiny shit. They are doing god's work, don't ya know.
rainmanjr
Level 8
May 5, 2022
2
I'm already looking down the road to the electoral backlash at both the state and federal levels. I think the Republicans are going to deeply regret this ruling.
@Flyingsaucesir I'm hoping so but have nothing to base a guess on. Guesses are a lot like wishes and best to avoid.
@Flyingsaucesir I hope you are right, I am not ready to live in "The Handmaid's Tale." That book scared the s--t out of me when I was a Xian, now that I'm aged out, it would be unfathomable, truly hell.
The 4th amendment says a person should be secure in their person and not subject to search without a warrant. You may not have a right to privacy but the government doesn't have the right to know you're pregnant.
Buttercup
Level 8
May 5, 2022
2
Yes! And from that it is reasonable to INFER a right to privacy. Not everything has to be spelled out explicitly. We can add 2 + 2.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.