The Supreme Court Is Wrong — Privacy Underscores Every Express Constitutional Right
It’s been several weeks since the leaked Supreme Court brief signaling their intent to enslave women by robbing them of their bodily autonomy by overturning Roe v. Wade. However, their rash act might do far more than they intended.
The brief in short says that the case was decided erroneously because the right to privacy on which it hinged doesn’t expressly exist in the U.S. Constitution.
That’s where the justices are egregiously wrong.
The right to privacy underscores every other right outlined by this document. If we assume that the Constitution doesn’t ensure privacy rights, then everything else it holds sacred in its words becomes moot. Should the justices proceed, they’re establishing a dangerous precedent under which any of the rights Americans hold dear — including speech and religion — can be curtailed according to the current political winds.
That reality should frighten people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or on the subject of abortion.
How Can You Have Any Rights Without the Right to Privacy? You Can’t
For example, consider the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. On what grounds, on what basis, did the U.S. founding fathers decree that a person’s home should remain free from soldiers and government officials barging through on a whim, helping themselves to some pie and perhaps the china you serve it on, trashing the place, and hauling you off to prison for that joint your cousin left in the outside ashtray?
If you don’t think they had in mind the idea that a person should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home, I’m not sure what other explanation there is. Please, enlighten me.
Isn’t it a bit absurd to say you should have the right to privacy within your own home but not within your own womb?
However, should the Supreme Court say no underlying right to privacy exists in the Constitution, how could they enforce the Fourth Amendment? “Because we told you so” might work for toddlers, but the American people deserve a better explanation.
“Oh, but in this case,” the court might argue, “there’s a higher compelling reason.” After all, who can forget that the United States apparently has a shortage of a “domestic supply of infants” to match that of baby formula?
Uh-huh. And the government might also have a “compelling reason” to want you safely behind bars, like saying stuff they don’t like. One has to pause and wonder how sacrosanct they’d hold that Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure in such circumstances.
Let’s be more prosaic and less conspiracy theorist. The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note how this right — one that many Americans hold sacred above all others — hinges not on individual privacy rights but on the overwhelming need of the state for soldiers.
Nowadays, advanced weapons technologies render the need for a civilian militia moot, even making the idea downright laughable. However, few could argue mass shootings aren’t a problem in America. Blue-leaning states could make a convincing argument that knowing exactly how many and what type of weapons people keep in their homes represents a compelling government need to prevent another would-be school shooter from stealing their folks’ AR and traumatizing or murdering their classmates.
If the Second Amendment rested on the right to privacy, such measures would be seen as incredibly invasive. If it only exists to protect a governmental interest, well, then, letting a few cops in your home to inspect your gun safe isn’t preventing you from exercising your right to keep and bear arms. It simply makes it a bit more of a pain in your arse.
Trust me, compared to turning to the black market for a medical procedure, having a gold star stamp a book saying your possessions are under lock and key is a cakewalk.
The 14th Serves a Vital Purpose, One the Founders Would Approve
The 14th Amendment, on which the justices claim the original Roe decision sits, states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.” In short, it extends to all citizens those rights ensured by the Constitution and voids any law that would deprive them of these rights.
I’m bereft to think of how, then, the government could allow states to draft laws that would knowingly deprive people of life. It’s a well-established medical fact that some pregnancies imperil the mother’s life and health, possibly killing her or leading to permanent disability. Yet, in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court would act in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, allowing the state to condemn her to death if that state’s laws forbid abortion with no regard for the life and health of the mother. Several states have already drafted such legislation and stand poised to enact it should Roe fall.
The only way to argue that the “potential life” of a fetus takes precedence over that of a living, human, breathing woman is to deny her of her essential right to life. If we don’t hold up the mother’s life and health as sacrosanct and worthy of protection, we deny her basic humanity. She is not a person; she is a mere vessel; a receptacle, willing or unwilling, for men’s seed, forced to bear it, again, willing or unwilling.
How the Supreme Court could imply such a statement about women — indeed when a female is among those making such an assertion — boggles the mind. The only plausible explanation is that their decision-making process is driven not by an honest examination of the law and the ramifications of modifying it in light of current scientific knowledge but from sheer political motivations. The conservatives on the Court want to swing back at what they perceive as decades of a “liberal agenda,” and those women who die as a result are mere casualties of war to them. Less, because at least casualties of war get treated with honor. Women in need of an abortion, even if medically necessary, even if partnered, often get treated like the whore of Babylon personified.
The spirit of the 14th Amendment supported the rights of recently freed slaves emancipated after the Civil War. It’s baffling to understand how the Court could not understand the Founder’s overarching intent when drafting this amendment. They realized things would change, that future knowledge would inevitably render some of their current understanding moot. Now, they want to return America to the days when one person could own another, not based on the color of their skin but their gender assigned at birth. What else is being forced to carry a burden you did not choose, one that imperils your life and health, other than slavery?
Should Roe Fall, Every Other Right Stands to Topple
Many critics have already pointed out that should Roe fall, it isn’t too much of a stretch for the Court to say the right to buy contraception should also be a state’s right matter. Gay marriage? Same thing. In fact, should the Court overturn Roe, it signifies a new level of laissez-faire governance, one in which each individual territory decides the law in its jurisdiction, leaving many Americans with little more than frontier justice for protection.
What the conservatives fail to realize is that people will fight back. And it may not be pretty or elegant. It may take time, but eventually, the balance of the Court will again shift.
According to Alito, the doctrine of “stare decisis” — let the decision stand — shouldn’t apply to Roe. The leaked draft references the idea that it is more important to settle a matter than settle it correctly. However, what, then, can society count on if not precedent? Long after Alito and co leave the bench, a new, much more progressive Court could take over. They could likewise decide that the doctrine of stare decisis doesn’t matter and that they can, in short, do whatever they like without so much as a nod to previously established precedence.
The result could be anarchy. The new Court could pick and choose rule any way they like with no heed given to what people have come to expect.
History tells us what happens in times when law shifts abruptly and capriciously. The natives grow restless. Discontent is already at unprecedented highs in this country. Does the current Court really want to risk the fallout that could occur from overturning what has become one of the cornerstones of American democracy, one that should be a hallmark of democracy everywhere and is according to the U.N. — that a woman has an inalienable right to control her own body? They should think long and hard about it.
Overturning Roe Is Wrong on Many Levels
Overturning Roe is wrong on multiple levels. At its most fundamental core is the essential right to privacy between a woman and her doctor to make the right medical decision about what to do with her body. Considering such privacy anything but absolute is anathema to a democratic society where, presumably, people have autonomy over their person and decisions.
Women will die if Roe is overturned. This reality flies in the face of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that no state should deprive a citizen — which women are — of their right to life and liberty. Denying a necessary medical procedure to someone in need when it has been safe and effective for years is nothing more than draconian torture, a de facto means of genocide as those unhealthy enough to survive pregnancy will perish.
Overturning such a crucial ruling on political whims seems downright dangerous and cruel. It threatens the very stability of our legal system and throws every other right into question, including those presumably guaranteed by the first ten amendments. A pro-life nation can hardly claim it needs a “well-regulated militia” in our modern era more than it needs kids to be able to go to school or law-abiding adults to the grocery store without getting shot.
Overturning Roe is wrong on every level imaginable, from a moral to a legal to a pragmatic one. The Court still has time to consider their decision — perhaps they should take more time to ponder the potential consequences of their actions.
