Frame it this way if your argument is only thing the scotus is doing is "turning it over to the states". To play that out how would you feel if a right you took seriously was no longer valid in some parts of the US? ( maybe religion, or free speech, or the right to own a firearm.. and no there is not a single state in the US where that is illegal).
It is really hilarious that the folks happy about this don't see the issues with things such as privacy for medical records, for example. I know they could care less about women's rights but their own records could be fair game for anyone. Also bet the folks liking this saying "let the states decide" will be the FIRST to say what a great thing it is if Republicans go through with a national ban.
Turning over to the states is transparent nonsense, imo. Anyway, I'd bet the ranch that when pubs gain back control of congress and the presidency, we'll see the push for a federal ban.
Medical records are protected by HIPPA. The broader issue of the elimination of the right to privacy is that there are so many rights that are unprotected by statute and statutes can be changed. The even darker aspect of that draft (if sogned In) is the adoption of originalism by the majority. For example, the 6th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. But, I’m the 1800s, there was no concept of a public defender for the poor. You could hide your own lawyer. Does originalism effectively overrule Gideon? The abuse by the British was that their army occupied homes. They triggered the warrant clause if the 4th Amendment. Is that the limit of the 4th Amendment? There were not phones. Can the government eavesdrop on phones without wa warrant? There was no exclusionary rule for illegally seized evidence; is that rule overruled now? Sodomy was a crime. No right to privacy; is it a crime now? Does anyone believe that privacy is not part of “liberty?”
I agree with all that but on the HIPPA. Couldn't a challenge be raised in court regarding privacy not being guaranteed?
Well said, duch! I've long made it a point to try to keep from being reactive or prone to exaggeration, but it's hard not to think how this effort will not stop with abortion. Interracial marriage? Civil rights? Gay Rights? They're going to try roll back social progress of the 20th & 21st centuries to the detriment of us all. What seems to be the driving impetus is religious freedom to control and discriminate above all else.
No. The ruling in the draft doesn’t say that government cannot protect privacy. It says that the constitution doesn’t protect privacy by itself. That does not stop Congress from protecting privacy. Or the states.
Gotcha. I thought someone could mount a challenge based on privacy NOT being guaranteed and therefore HIPPA rules weren't constitutional because they were based on a nonexistent right. Thanks.
Interracial marriage is protected by the equal protection clause. The prohibition is a form of racial discrimination. So, that is protected still. Gays are not a suspect class so they is an open question.
Even if they can't with racial discrimination per se, they're finding different ways. The anti-CRT hysteria being just the latest iteration, e.g.. And how about voting rights? SCOTUS basically gutted the VRA in 2013 while the effort to discourage blacks from voting will continue.
While holding that marriage is a fundamental right works, the proper way of handling it should have been applying heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics should always be analyzed under heightened scrutiny. Denying gay people equal rights because they're gay should violate the Equal Protection Clause. Its plain text mandates such a result.
Now the Governor of Mississippi sidesteps whether contraception will be outlawed. Because Mississippi is always the source of moral leadership and sensitivity to our nation’s truest values, as evidenced by the fact that Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery….in 1995. Always leading https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/
Feelings have nothing to do with rights. I'm sure a pedophile has strong feelings about molesting children, but that it in and of itself does not create a right. The writers of the Declaration of Independence got it right. Rights come from the Creator. If abortion is a right that comes from a deity, then whatever deity that came from is full of blood lust for children's blood. And such a deity is probably more properly called a demon rather than a Creator.
No one claimed that feelings had anything to do with rights. They asked how you would feel if your rights were declared to no longer be rights. So, how would you fell if some of your rights were declared no longer valid in some parts of the US?
