|
Kirata -> RE: Abortion has been safe and legal for 45 years now! FUCK YOU "PRO-LIFERS"!!! (6/11/2011 9:47:57 AM)
|
Have you ever considered dancing as a profession?
I quote directly from the majority opinion, and you falsely claim that I trimmed the quote. I cite Justice Stewart's concurrance, because it makes the matter at issue explicit, and you complain that it's only a concurrance. Okay, we'll do it the hard way. From the majority opinion, Section VIII:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however... the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment... in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments... in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights... in the Ninth Amendment... or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Critically, however...
These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty..." are included in this guarantee of personal privacy
In other words, it is a derived right having only specific and limited applications. Such is the nature of the so-called "right to privacy" being mooted here. Hence, as the majority finding makes clear, Roe was decided on the basis of the specific and limited protection of due process...
To summarize and repeat:
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
To bandy on about some mythological constitutional "right to privacy" is misleading, and to claim that Roe was decided on the basis of such a "right" is simply false. The constitutional basis for finding in favor of Roe was that the statute under examination violated due process. Had Roe's so-called right to privacy been "violated" in any of myriad other ways, she would quickly have found that she had none.
K.
|
|
|
|
