the abortion legalities?

Question

it seems that roe will probably be reversed under the new suprme court. much of the privacy law upon which it decided in 1973 is currently being undermined by sec 129 of the patriot act 2 of 2003 which gives govt the legal right to gather any information about you that they want to without any warrant of any kind and without your knowledge. will overturning roe give even more power to the government in gathering information without court supervision? anyone know if this is really something to consider if roe is formally challenged?

Answer 1

The Patriot Act has not reduced anyone's rights. It is merely a a consolidation of measures that agencies that were already permitted to legally take. Your concern is unfounded.

Also remember that overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal. Rather it turns the issue over to each individual state to decide for itself.

Additionally, if Roe is overturned, the basis will not be that there is no privacy matter at stake, it will be on other grounds (specifically a majority saying that the federal government is not qualified or permitted under the constitution to say when life begins).

Please note that I'm not stating an opinion on either side of these issues. These are just my detached thoughts on the legalities--not what I want to happen.

Answer 2

Dizneeland is actually off the mark on both points. The Patriot Act did significantly broaden the scope of what federal agents can do, which did reduce many of the implicit rights and freedoms that had been in place. But the Patriot Act has nothing to do with Roe.

For that matter, most people forget that Roe v. Wade is not the current definitive law on the matter. Roe was already partially overturned in 1992 in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.

Casey tossed out the trimester approach established by Roe, and set up the new undue burden standard. Under that standard, the government can regulate to any legitimate degree (usually at the state level) once the fetus has reached the point of viability. A that point, it (medically) counts as an independent life, because it can live outside the womb using only current medical life support techniques.

Under Casey, however, the state cannot impose an undue burden against abortions pre-viability, because that intrudes on the fundamental rights of the mother to control her own body.

The issue has nothing to do with federal determinations of when life begins. The fundamental right to bodily integrity, and the right to control what medical procedures are or are not done to one's own body is a fundamental right that existed long before Roe.

The existing Supreme Court decisions are based on recognition of that fundamental right to bodily integrity, as recognized by Casey and dozens of other cases. For the Supreme Court to reverse Casey, they would need to either make the judicial determination that life begins at conception (which they can't do for the reasons set forth above), or rule that there is no fundamental right to bodily integrity, and no fundamental right to control your own reproductive functions.

But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, and the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.

New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected as a fundamental right.

Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. Again, no constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.

Once the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.

Do you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.

The concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.

Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?

Answer 3

you said it well dizneeland