Replies

The decision reads: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is . . ."

The Supreme Court relied on it's magical ability to divine rights from the "penumbras" of the 14th Amendment. In otherwords, they made it up. It ain't there. There ain't no such right.

Yes, they made it up out of 'pen'umbras, and thus have they knitted an evil corset which now binds the SCOTUS. But there may be a relief as yet unaddressed.

Here's the question, if Roe Vs Wade is overturned, should it remain a states rights decision, or should a federal law banning the practise immediatley be sought for by congress? 5 posted by Sonny M Perhaps, here is one of the keys to unlock this gordian knot, law addressing abortion is a states' rights issue.

Is it so outlandish to say that the Roe decision, which vaguely addressed a state's 'compelling interest' can be brought to the front ... as a compelling interest of the state where life support is the issue? If abortion law were referred back to the states, any state so writing such laws could address limitation which would direct the judicial judgement toward life support in a gradation fashion, as in making illicit any abortion after the twelfth week from last ovulation of the female, except where a continuing life support would endanger the life of the one giving life support. The rape and incest clauses would fall under the first three month 'window' of unadopted compelling interest of the state, but all terminations would be the purview of the states' right as a compelling interest for the one receiving life support.

No constitutional right to privacy?

I have always thought it was one of the most important rights.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a state passed a law which forbade intercourse with your spouse more frequently than once a week, would you not feel that a fundamental right had been violated?

Or, more plausibly, if a state passed a law which provided that in the event of divorce or bastardy, men were unfit to be custodians, would you not feel that a fundamental right had been violated?