SCOTUS got involved, because the State had anti abortion laws. Roe got an abortion and was convicted of breaking the law. Her atty's essentially claimed it was a violation of her right to privacy with her hitman(doc). SCOTUS agreed. Logically, this means I can hire a hitman and as long as he's my doc and this effects my mental health, it's a private medical affair and the State can't get involved. As I said, the right to privacy exists, but it does not negate legislated law.
An anti-abortion law does not come under the 14th. The 14th amendment gives neither congress or the courts any jurisdiction over private conduct or anything remotely plenary over the liberties of the people. A anti-abortion law has nothing to do with a state depriving anyone of due process for a act made a criminal....there has to be a denial of some specific procedure of law found in the Bill of Rights before this can be considered a federal issue. A anti-abortion law is not depriving a fetus or a mother of any due process for any law made criminal by the State. The fetus has not committed any crimes or stands trials accused. Now you can argue the mother is committing a crime if there is a State anti-abortion law, but this isn't a 14th amendment issue by any stretch of the imagination. A anti-abortion law is just like a law against murder, it is a protective law. Only way a woman would have a 14th issue is if she violates some anti-abortion law and the State throws her in jail without a trial...otherwise this issue is void of any 14th jurisdiction because the mother does not stand to be deprived of due process or equal protection of the laws by State action for a act made a crime.
And the 14th gave congress no authority to legislate over the life, liberty or property of the people...this why they had to add amendments to the constitution for voting rights after the 14th was adopted.
Sadly, a State is perfectly empowered to legalize abortion just as they are perfectly capable of abolishing it. But in either case the SCOTUS is powerless to intervene through the 14th and this is by design and intent, not interpretation.
All laws, at all levels of govm't, are subject to Constitutional scrutiny.
"The 14th amendment gives neither congress or the courts any jurisdiction over private conduct or anything remotely plenary over the liberties of the people."
Oh? See the civil rights statutes, the 18USC24xs.
"A anti-abortion law has nothing to do with a state depriving anyone of due process"
That's correct. The baby, however is being denied their right to life.
" A anti-abortion law is just like a law against murder, it is a protective law."
That's correct. In order to evade that fact, the Court had to redefine "person", which they did. The new definition excluded the unborn. They don't have the power to do that, the legislatures do.
"And the 14th gave congress no authority to legislate over the life, liberty or property of the people...this why they had to add amendments to the constitution for voting rights after the 14th was adopted."
The Constitution itself lists voter qualifications and defines who is a person. So the amendment was necessary. Note the statutes, 18USC24xs, did not need addiitonal Amendment, the 14th gave them the power to legislate. Both in that case and in the case of the Civil Rights Acts.
"a State is perfectly empowered to legalize abortion just as they are perfectly capable of abolishing it."
Yes.
" But in either case the SCOTUS is powerless to intervene through the 14th and this is by design and intent, not interpretation."
Congress can define person. In that case, the Court has jurisdiction under the 14th.