(I'm also a little shocked that the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad about this. All those rights they think they still have are also now on the table.)
We anti-big-government crowd types are hopeful that the right to privacy that was invented by the supreme court in 1973 and revoked by the supreme court in 2022 will be added via the correct, non-reversible legislative process it ought to have been back then.
The majority does want abortion rights, but those rights aren't coming. That's not democracy in action.
The majority does want abortion, and yet we just lost it.
> far from destroying democracy, that is democracy in action
Do you still believe this, given that your next sentence is patently false?
Especially when people are cheering on the side that's removing said rights because people would ban abortion, same-sex marriage etc no matter the cost.
The supreme court is the government too...
The fetus is a "living person" according to many biologists
> Only law students would see symmetry such a thing
Have you been in any law classroom?
It's also not a "living person" according to "many" biologists.
People should be very afraid of decisions like these which take away rights from people.
2. What legal precedent did roe upend? I can’t think of any.
Otherwise anytime a law is passed, we’d consider it “overturning precedent”.
Precedent means that there is a long string of legal jurisprudence on a subject. Obviously roe/griswold created a new one, but it didn’t overturn/upend an existing one.
Regarding the bans in those states, do they ban providing the service within the state, or does it ban having the procedure anywhere at all? The privacy impact is very different depending on that rule.
The work I've done with health information and privacy and consent directives management has always been a kind of second-best solution. We (Canada) have privacy laws to protect PHI and to require consent for collection, use, and disclosure of your PHI, but agencies regularly run roughshod over it, there is almost zero prosecution or enforcement, and both the research and public health cultures openly express contempt for individual privacy. Even when it comes to reproductive health information, many academic researchers tend to act as though they are entitled to it. The vaccine passports were an example of that culture's approach to bodily integrity and use of personal health information, and while abortion is a different issue and should be treated by itself, they are under the same privacy concept. I wouldn't expect them to treat abortion and reproductive information as any more sacred.
How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates? Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today. The abortion issue may be a forcing function for privacy questions, and I could see a lot of interests rushing into the policy vacuum this leaves.
AFAIK, this has not been tested yet. Although most people seem to be under the impression that states only have jurisdiction within their own borders, not generally over anyone who calls that land their home. I'm sure it will find its way to the supreme court eventually.
> How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates?
This already happens, though it is voluntary. Both with fitness trackers, and in the case of car insurance with OBD2 trackers that phone home with your driving habits.
> Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today
Heck, not just banks. E.g. Best Buy uses alternative data sources to decide whether or not you are allowed to return an item that you've purchased.
At some point I hope we at least pass a law that says something to the effect of "all data that can be reasonably tied to an individual is required to be available for review and correction, and all businesses engaged in the collection or use of such data shall be publicly registered as such." Or we could just make the data collection (or at least sharing) illegal outright. That'd be nice.
States have substantial powers in this area. If they declare the unborn to be a "person" then they can do things to protect those people from being removed from the state. Some are talking about charging women with murder should they travel to another state for an abortion. The rules about people moving between states to take advantage of different laws are very old. They go to slavery and allowing or not allowing people to move between slave and free states. Similarly, the rules governing how and when people are extradited between states go back that far too. We could soon see states like New York refusing to extradite women charged with an abortion-related offenses. This would mirror very old cases of escaped slaves not being returned.
I know, I know, "private company" and all that, but we already have a broad range of illegal questions for private & public employers--like age, genetic information, birthplace, country of origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, race, color, ethnicity, religion. Seems like past medical procedures would also fit nicely in that list.
It may be worthwhile to amend the Constitution with an explicit right to privacy. In hindsight, conjuring one through judicial activism was not the way to go about it.
Conversely, I have about as much respect for these judges as I'd have for a bench comprised solely of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (which is, to be fair, more respect than for a bench that included Roger B. Taney).
Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion it falls on those who see it as a constitutional right to show their work. Especially since abortion has historically been illegal especially after the baby's first movement.
So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy?
That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.
Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.
It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years.
A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion:
https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...
Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy.
> Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution.
The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.
Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.
The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.