Would you support overturning Roe v. Wade?

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

What an awakening!

I mean, I was taught that our Constitution was a system of ENUMERATED Rights; that when a Court declared something a "right" it was rooted in an enumerated right listed in the Constitution.  Obviously, my professors had their heads stuck in a very dark place.

What law can their be if we can just create rights out of whole cloth?  Even more ominously, what rights can be taken away if the concept of enumerated rights is relegated to something honored only in the breach?

Welp, I guess your professors just forgot that the 9th Amendment, y'know, exists: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."