Just like the fundamental right of Black people not to be slaves, right Clarence?
Your reading of the law is extremely poor. The 14th Amendment does not create a right to privacy, rather a line of decisions recognizing that you have the right to keep things in your home, on or about your person etc private, built out a framework suggesting that the “penumbras” of the 4th and 5th amendments (mostly the 4th) establish a right to privacy. Note that similar rights exist without being purely enumerated–travel and property being key ones. However, without the 14th Amendment the right to privacy at most is something that constrains Federal action. The 14th Amendment, through what is called “incorporation” gives the Federal government (and its courts) the authority to intercede if a State is denying rights guaranteed under the Federal constitution to their citizens.
This was the plain, unambiguous, uncontroversial intent of the 14th Amendment, which was specifically drafted precisely so the Federal government could functionally quash laws passed by States that would attempt to discriminate against newly freed blacks. However, we had a bad Supreme Court in the 1860s much like we do now, and while the intent of the Congress was clear in drafting the 14th, the 1860s Supreme Court largely gutted it, and then reconstruction ended and the country decided not to fight about it anymore and let the South massively discriminate against blacks for 100 years.
The way Blackmun saw it, the right of privacy was applicable to the States because of the 14th Amendment, and thus the State could not interfere in the personal medical decisions of a woman. That last clause is frankly the part where Roe always kind of lost me. I agree with the 14th Amendment being designed for, and desired as, a cudgel to use against the States–in fact it was imagined Congress would just pass lots of laws quashing State power anytime they acted up (because of the ending of Reconstruction and the realignment of the political factions afterward, this basically stopped after the early 1870s.) However, I don’t actually fully agree that the State cannot regulate the practice of medical abortion without interfering with a woman’s right to privacy. I think there is actually a way to uphold Griswold but strike down Roe, but not as Alito has written it, Alito and his faction are in line with some posters on this board who mostly think the 14th Amendment should have zero power–not out of an originalist interpretation, the originalist interpretation is clear–the 14th was written as a weapon for the Federal government to wield against recalcitrant States. No, they simply pretend the poor Supreme Court decisions by revanchist justices in the 1860s should be “originalism”, not the actual original intent of the legislators who wrote the 14th.
While I can see that that was rude, the standards I see on one side are about Truth, Justice and the American Way, while the “conservative” judges and leaders go for Untruth, injustice and… the non democratic way.
Well, so much for that “red wave” the righties were hoping for.
Moderating:
This is perjorative and unnecessarily provocative language. Please refrain from doing this again.
Not a warning.
This is a fraught and emotional topic. Let’s all try to be respectful while discussing it. Also, let’s please stick to the topic and not hijack the thread into discussions of adjacent issues.
So, when your state decides that you didn’t get good enough SAT scores to reproduce, you will be happy about having your reproductive organs ripped from your body?
The only logical next battle is going to be to take it federal. D’s will try to pass a law through Congress making abortion legal in all 50 states. R’s will try to pass a law making it illegal in all 50 states.
NOBODY wants to make abortion mandatory.
The 10th Amendment has literally nothing to do with this case. It was not a significant factor in any abortion case, including this one. This case was about whether States could regulate abortion without violating the 14th Amendment. Alito’s majority found that it could in doing so he overruled Roe.
The 10th Amendment has little judicial relevance and is rarely cited in any court decision as a significant constitutional factor. The States have regular police powers that do not derive from the 10th Amendment.
I’m being perfectly nice, and you made no mark, were you trying to make some sort of mark?
I’m just asking you if you are willing to surrender your reproductive choices to the whims of your state?
This discussion has become entirely too heated and too personal. I’m closing it for a cooling-off period. The disregard of and mockery about mod notes is unwarranted and will result in possible Warnings.
-deleted-
I’m rescinding this, on rereading it now that the troll has been removed. I don’t really see a problem.
Southern Strategy does not belong in this thread. Take it to a new one if you like. It is a serious hijack.
A general note to please try to be respectful in continuing this discussion.
How many of those polls were conducted in the last twelve hours? Choice wasn’t a big issue for women because they already had it up until today.
Conservatives just bombed Pearl Harbor and are gloating about winning a battle. Let’s see if they win the war that results.
Minor nitpick, the cases I think you are referring to were decided in 1873, after Grant appointed Justices Strong and Bradley.
~Max
Thank you for this post and I think you are correct in Blackmun’s argument as well as the major issues with Alito’s decision. I disagree with you on the medical abortion & privacy link, but I think you’re opinion makes sense and if the majority wanted to overturn Roe (as they did) they really should have approached it from that angel. Gutting a right to privacy coming from the 14th Amendment incorporating rights emanating the 4th and 5th Amendments is going to lead to a lot of unintended consequences if they follow through with the reasoning in other cases (as Thomas seems to want to do).