I have heard many constitutional scholars the last few days say that if Roe is overturned on the basis of the right to privacy being nullified (which is included in the leaked draft), then the other rights supported by the Supreme Court on the basis of the right to privacy would also be unconstitutional. That surely includes contraception, which was illegal in Connecticut until the Griswold decision recognized the right to privacy, and therefore, the right to use contraceptives. If the right to privacy is nullified, then contraceptives can be made illegal in this country. The Supreme Court cannot nullify the right to privacy and then expect to keep in place other rights that were ruled as being constitutional by the Supreme Court if the court used the right to privacy as the basis for those rulings. Alito surely knows this, and his protestations to the contrary are as intentionally dishonest as was his testimony about Roe during his confirmation hearings.
I was discussing the draft with someone who is not vaxxed yesterday. I told him that if there is no right to privacy, they can force him to get a vaccine.
You are presuming a principled consistency I application which I do not. I think this Court is highly unprincipled, purely partisan and tribal. If application of a prior principle works to the disfavor of their preferred group, they will just ignore it
. I have been saying this for days. That draft is not even that limited in its sweeping change to constitutional interpretation. Think about originals and the warrants clause. That clause was based on the British practice of occupying people’s homes, particularly war time. Do you want your business searched without a warrant? Or your phone tapped? Under originalism, they can do it because the warrant clause would be limited. And suppression of illegally seized evidence was not an original remedy. Can’t sustain those decisions either.
Their overarching principle is the limitation of individual rights under the constitution and the transfer of rules rights to government or big business.
I agree. I'm just saying they won't follow that principle announced with bold righteousness and a prior decision if it leads to a result they don't like
For those who don't feel like clicking on the above, what that FDNY guy is saying is "“You have no choice. Not your choice, not your body, your body is mine.”" And at the end he closes with "you're all having my baby".
There’s more to the story. This is a group that frequently harasses women going into the clinic, and they we’re waiting to invade the clinic. However more and more pro choice people started showing up chanting, and you could see they were starting to get nervous. Finally a cheer went up when the NYPD said they weren’t going to provide police protection for the invaders. All they could do was stand there at the church steps.
Oh yeah lots of videos about protesters showing up to drown out the ones harassing patients, etc. It's his words that are just....telling if nothing else.
"Leave it up to the states". "You're being hysterical, there's no way there will ever be a national ban on abortion."
Women already asking online if they have an IUD and are from another state, go to Mardi Gras, and go to the hospital because of an accident or something, would they be subject to a pelvic/scan to see if they have an IUD? Would they then forcibly rip it out and arrest them? This is SERIOUSLY okay with some people?? More fears women have to deal with.
Wrapped in a flag, waving a bible around spouting off about liberty and how they alone can fight off tyranny, as they proceed to impose it.