Obviously there are a lot of opinions here, but I want to make sure people actually thought about what is happening with this ruling. In Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade was overturned - that previous court decision was based on the "right to privacy". What is the right to privacy?
The Right To Privacy
It doesn't exist
Why Americans Think They Have One
There were some important precursor cases that would matter for a thorough deep dive, but I'll only mention them briefly here:
- Weems v. the United States, 1910 - the constitution may need to be interpreted to modern times
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923 - there must be a good reason to insert the government between parents and their children
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925 - private elementary schooling must be permitted in the context of compulsory education
In 1928, Supreme Court associate Justice Louis Brandeis cited a lot of things in his famous dissent to the court's decision in Olmstead v. United States, but mostly built on his own work creating a "right to privacy". Essentially, it should seem obvious given the combination of rights granted in the constitution (especially the fifth, fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America) that citizens of the United States of America have a right to privacy
This line of reasoning did not sway the majority of the court in Olmstead. Instead, the court found that as there was no mention of telephones in the constitution, it's perfectly acceptable for the government to wiretap whomever they wish and use the proceeds against them in court. Constitutional protections against search and seizure applied only to places, not people. So long as the government is physically outside your home or business when collecting evidence, there is no need for a warrant - the "Trespass Doctrine"
That might sound strange and unreasonable to many Americans. Weren't they just outraged that the government was doing exactly that when Snowden revealed it? If the supreme court already confirmed it's fine and we knew the government was doing it, why the shock and horror?
Olmstead was reversed in 1967. The court's decision in Katz v. United States held that the protection against search and seizure applies to citizens instead of places. The trespass doctrine made no sense in our modern, electronic world. It was replaced with what we now call the "Katz test" as taken from associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II's concurrence:
My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable
This is what most Americans still think of; a reasonable expectation of privacy is the right to privacy. We take it for granted. It helped firm up some of the recent court decisions and provided a simple framework for future cases
Built On Shaky Foundations
A few important "rights" that were derived from this "right to privacy":
- Married Couples May Use Contraception - Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
- Interracial Couples May Marry - Loving v. Virginia, 1967
- Wiretaps Require A Warrant - Katz v. United States, 1967
- Abortion (with definitions by trimester, changed to viability in Casey) - Roe v. Wade, 1972
- Individuals May Use Contraception - Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972
- Homosexuals May Fornicate - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
- Homosexuals May Marry - Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
These are rights that were clarified above and beyond the inferred right to privacy. Marriage is a private, personal decision. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of the government's business. Whether a woman is committing murder or not with an abortion depends on the ability of the aborted to live without the mother (can't kill something that can't live). Warrants are required for the government to spy on citizens. All of this comes from inference. Nowhere is any of it spelled out in the constitution
Why Dobbs v Jackson Matters
Associate Justice Samuel Alito writes in the court's decision:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision
For many, that is a frightening statement. In the next sentence, there is an attempt to temper what is sure to be a massive storm:
any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Alito acknowledges that Americans may get some rights not explicitly defined in the constitution, but only if the court finds them to be traditional. In a vacuum, this might seem reasonable, but it wasn't previously reasonable to make a phone call without the government listening in on it as phone calls weren't "deeply rooted in this Nation's history". It isn't just access to abortion at risk - all rights derived from the right to privacy, and the right to privacy itself have been put up for grabs
Clarification to this effect was provided by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrence:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)[1]*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of Thomas, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous”
Justice Thomas understood they were removing a "right" and sees it as a potential opening to remove further "rights" - it has been plainly stated and the invitation published. Americans count on "rights" that don't technically exist. The underpinnings of those rights has been deemed invalid in Roe and suspected to be invalid in other cases
Conclusion
While the right to privacy may be codified into law, laws change with the whims of politicians. Constitutional amendments have become increasingly difficult to pass. Many might be ok with particular rights being taken from particular people - people from a different gender, people with different beliefs, people in a different state, people with a different sexual orientation, or people that use contraceptives. Perhaps they hope to pull the brake just before one of the rights they exercise is taken
Without a right to privacy, they won't have much chance of success
For this reason, and so many more, I dissent
Your conclusion is on point. All good as long as it doesn't personally impact them or anyone close to them, then when it does it suddenly isn't right.
Before you gain any right to privacy or other rights as humans.
If the right to life is not there. There is no rights after.
My own opinion.
Those objecting to the overturning or Roe Vs Wade, are in conflict with themselves. They want the rights of life, But they had no right to be born?
I'm aware of various religious beliefs and have nothing against them. You're free to hold your opinion. Free to hold your religious beliefs about what is "a life"
You having a belief does not give you the magic power to exert your will over everyone else. That kind of zealotry and religious extremism is not to be tolerated in any free state
As this post should have made clear had you read it, the implications of the Dobb's decision go far beyond you having your religious sensibilities offended
Sincerely, I'm sorry you're offended by people having rights, but you're just gonna have to bottle that up and treat it as a "you" problem. The harms of your own countries old laws should still be fresh enough in your mind to know why it isn't ok. There are some religious states out there if you'd like to take up one of those, but neither you nor I live in one of them
Religious belief? You brought up religion.
I mentioned nothing about religion.
It was logic,
if you do not have a right to life. Any other right assigned after is already void.
As for free. I very much doubt there is a true free state that is in the power of the population.
Assigning the property "you" to a zygote requires religion or some other kind of mysticism. There is no logic there. Quite often, zygotes never attach to become embryos. Embryos may not develop into a fetus. Just natural occurrences in life that the woman may not ever even be aware of. It often looks quite similar to the normal monthly cycle when it passes out and doesn't look any different. These are also abortion, just not medically induced. It wasn't until quite recently in history that people, under the guise of religion, decided that a zygote was a "you" and should get any kind of rights. Of course it is absurd and doesn't result in any positive outcomes
Most mammals, and indeed for the majority of humans (pretty much all humans until recent history), consider life to begin and end with breath. When we take our first breath and give our last breath
Romantically, the heart has been linked to various properties of our spirits. This has no logical connection to our actual hearts, of course. That romantic connection has been used to manipulate religious believers into supporting restrictions on human rights - the rights of living, breathing, existing humans
How else do you arrive at giving zygotes the assignment "you"?
I am the furthest thing from any kind of religious zealot and I believe that life begins at conception. I base my belief purely on scientific fact that an egg and sperm combine and immediately begin to define the process of what will eventually replicate and combine new cells into a mini human. It's a natural,natural biological process that can be seen in the majority of species of life on our planet. Its Life no matter who looks as it and being a process of nature is where we get our bill of rights. Those rights listed are natural and not given to us by a government. The very fist right is "life". These are not things that only religious zealots believe or force upon others. Do not forget that founding fathers of the USA were all "religious". Many of them were in fact atheist and that was a driving factor as to why they left the English homeland. To get away from state sponsored religion. To practice or not practice what they personally chose.
Throwing out a generalization of it being a religion exclusive item is 100% false. I know many atheists in real life who would debate you till you drop on this.
All life on this planet is special and should be cherished, loved and cultivated. Whether its a tiny mushroom, African Elephant or a Homo Sapiens. It should not be thrown away for a little regret of sexual satisfaction last night.
Appreciate you weighing in! Cool to hear from a real celebrity :)
There are many, many reasons for what the states define as "abortion" that are not your example. Many states now have the same definition that Ireland had in 2012. There was no reason for Savita Halappanavar to die. Of course many see value in a zygote. Many women mourn the loss of every one they know about (many are lost without ever knowing they were there in the first place)
It takes religious zealotry to force a woman to death rather than let her doctors perform obviously needed medical treatment because a nonviable fetus has a heartbeat. Having a heartbeat after a partial disconnection of the placenta happens. The fetus won't develop tho. Won't get all the organs and brain that it needs to actually live outside the womb. At some point, the woman's body should engage natural processes and eject the fetus - heart still beating. This is an aborted pregnancy just as much as every zygote that doesn't attach to the uterine wall. It's just not a medically induced abortion, and it isn't the D&C that many somewhat falsely refer to as abortion
I'm not a zealot either. No hard line here. It seems obvious from history that the extremes do not work. Birth control fails. Rapes happen. Incest happens. Non-viable fetuses happen. And the list is probably longer. I'm a man. I'm not a doctor. It shouldn't be up to me. It shouldn't be up to politicians. It should be up to women and doctors. Those are just my beliefs tho. I'm not looking to force them on everyone
In the interest of compromise, rather than "first breath" I think "no harassment about it in the first trimester" or "no questions asked if it isn't viable" (cannot kill what cannot live), and some exceptions for the obvious issues is good enough. There needs to be some balance between the rights of zygotes (thousands of which are flushed down toilets every day) and the rights of the woman
Of course, none of that is relevant to the issues presented in the post, but I assume we're just having some separate, philosophical discussion here
The privacy concerns are on point though. At least Here in the US we have percoeved "sense" of privacy. But even that is slowly slipping away as the general public thinks it's better to have email, social media and other "free" apps and entertainment. If they only knew what they were actually giving up Roe v Wade wouldn't even have been on the radar.
There is this strange notion that the US is this bastion of freedom but its not and hasn't been for a very long time. While it may be free-er than some places. There are many aspects that it is less free than others. With only a perception of being the freeest of all.
Celebrity my ass.
I wasnt mentioning the criminal acts and medical emergencies. Those are on a whole different level of discussion. I was merely speaking to the ones who get one just because they were too drunk or self indulged with their lust and was thinking with the wrong body parts and not the brain, lol.
I do not group people. That's your trick.
oh?
Where is the grouping?
Or what word should I use to imply more than one but no definitive number?
Curiosity. What religion do you think I am?
No idea. Just something that makes you think "you" is a sensible assignment to a zygote
I put "you" in quotes as I'm referencing the royal "you" as you used previously
I wrote you in the tense of the reader. Whomever the reader might be. Would be the you.
That be neither here nor there is real terms.
It does though open the door to interpretation of what we read. If there can be more than one interpretation. Then which one is right. And who then should decide what interpretation is right.
Can an interpretation be both right and wrong at the same time?
Only readers of this blog get rights? Why was the qualifier "as humans" used if you were only referring to readers of this blog?
I referred above to readers of what was wrote. How do you know where else this might appear?
I'm trying to follow along here.
Wouldnt "readers of the blog" naturally be human? Or are you considering bots to be "readers of the blog"? Considering that currently Humans are the only known species that actually "read" a blog with some form of conceiving the text into a thought process and there fore able to conceptualize the subject. Why would anyone question whether there is another species, be it biological or non-biological, outside of being another Human?
Fuck it, I need more coffee. This makes my brain hurt.
Congratulations @foxon! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 4250 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 27/37) Liquid rewards.
Dear @foxon, we need your help!
The Hivebuzz proposal already got important support from the community. However, it lost its funding a few days ago when the HBD stabilizer proposal rose above it.
May we ask you to support it so our team can continue its work?
You can do it on Peakd, Ecency,
https://peakd.com/me/proposals/199
All votes are helpful and yours will be much appreciated.
Thank you!
Dear, @foxon
May we ask you to review and support our @cryptobrewmaster GameFi proposal on DHF? It can be found here
If you havent tried playing CryptoBrewMaster you can give it a shot. Our @hivefest presentation available here on the YouTube with a pitchdeck of what we building in general
Vote with Peakd.com, Ecency.com, Hivesigner
Thank you!
👍💪🇦🇷