Can you point to anything that says the right to carry a pregnancy to term is a right that is “firmly rooted in our nation’s history and traditions”? Perhaps cases that addressed the issue in the 1800s. Or perhaps a some philosophical text or legal paper addressing the issue from the same period. Or any historical text that addressed the right to carry a pregnancy to term. When did the question of the right to carry a pregnancy to term–something completely different from sterilization–ever come up?
Why isn’t that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State” equally firmly rooted?
Part of due process is substantive due process, which includes the protection of liberty. Part of liberty is the ability to control one’s own body and make decisions about personhood.
Edit – Liberty would equally protect a woman from having the government force an abortion on her?
The Supreme Court does not endorse your gibberish. You can pick enough words out of SCOTUS decisions to say anything you want.
You don’t seem to understand that the body of conflict on this subject concerns who is a person and when they become one. Anything about the established rights of a person is pointless until the definition of person is agreed upon.
And it was under* Roe *that pointed to the 14th Amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …” that personhood in the US begins at birth (since you cannot be naturalized in utero). It may be a tortured reading but it’s the best we have so far.
"Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The controlling word in the cases before us is “liberty.” Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, sinceMuglerv.Kansas,123 U. S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.“Danielsv.Williams,474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986).”
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Both from Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 US 833.
How does it conflict with my OP? The OP was addressed to people who do not think the Constitution addresses abortion. I think that Constitution addresses abortion, and was I asking those who believe it does not (like Justice Scalia), if they really believe that the Constitution is silent on abortion, meaning there would be no constitutional problem with requiring an abortion.
Depending on your point of view abortion is not a reproductive decision, as the reproduction has already taken place, it is the decision to bring or not to bring that reproduction along past it’s existence in the liquid environment of the womb into the air breathing environment. That decision has been typically left up to the mother.
As for the OP’s example of state forced abortion, I can think of no greater crime against any sentient being then separating a mother from her child, nor can I think of no greater wrath then that of a momma bear on those who harm her cub. The state would not last long if they attempted this, karma would destroy it. So your example is really not possible except in a very temporal sense and the results would unfold over time.
There are forces in our world much more powerful then any state or constitution.
Well I’ve misunderstood your point then. Your OP implied (to me) that you didn’t believe SCOTUS had rendered the decision to the individual. Also, saying the Constitution addresses abortion is somewhat confusing. As I’m sure you know, it doesn’t mention abortion specifically. I think you mean something other than ‘address’.
And yet there are many laws that inhibit my control of my own body. Laws against using certain drugs, gambling, suicide, etc. Even if you narrow the issue to issues of sex/family/reproduction, you still have laws against prostitution, nude dancing, obscenity, consensual adult incest, etc. It’s difficult to come up with a principle that justifies abortion rights without also justifying the right to a large number of other things that most people (including the Supreme Court) do not view as fundamental rights.
The SCOTUS has addressed substantive rights - granted. However you did not answer the question asked. The question was “where it was presented in the US Constitution”. It’s not.
Furthermore when you say:
[QUOTE=Naive Evian]
"I think that Constitution addresses abortion, and was I asking those who believe it does not (like Justice Scalia), if they really believe that the Constitution is silent on abortion, meaning there would be no constitutional problem with requiring an abortion. "
[/QUOTE]
you are completely ignoring the argument I made regarding the 10th amendment - I’ll recap…
[QUOTE=zoid]
The way I read the 10th amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” is that unless the constitution specifically gives the federal government jurisdiction it does not have it.
I would give this as an example of the fact that the constitution does not address abortion because I can find no where it grants the federal government that kind of power and because of that omission the 10th says it in fact does not have that power.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t address the main argument pro-life legalists use.
To them, it isn’t an issue of the government making these decisions. Their argument is that the Constitution establishes two separate levels of government: the federal and states governments. The Constitution outlines the areas the federal government can regulate and says that all other areas can only be regulated by state governments.
On this particular issue, they’d argue that there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the power to regulate on abortions, health decisions, or privacy - so these areas are subject to state regulation. Their argument is the federal government can’t prohibit or mandate abortions - but a state government could legally do either.
To these people, the problem with Roe v Wade was that the Supreme Court was ruling outside of its jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not specifically or expressly set out each thing it protects. It does not even specifically or expressly set out protecting liberty. It would be impossible to expressly or specifically set set out each thing it protects, which is why we have the 9th amendment.
Read the 10th amendment again, it does not say, “The powers not specifically (or expressly) delegated.” There is no need for liberty or a woman’s right to choose to be specifically (or expressly) addressed. Liberty and the right to choose as covered by liberty are a part of due process. By your reading of the constitution, it would be constitutionally acceptable for the government to take people’s children away, and raise the children is a commune since parental rights are not specifically (or expressly) mentioned.
There is nothing that requires things to be specifically or expressly mentioned. Due process covers more.
I think that’s just a tactical move** Nemo**. They’d also like to see an amendment to the Constitution making abortion illegal at the federal level. They just realize that isn’t working and are using states rights as the basis of their attack. The same could be said for their personhood arguments where they want to declare fertilized egg to be a person having the same rights existing under the Constitution which would legally make abortion murder.