Undergirding the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade is the contention that the original basis for the ruling- the right of privacy- was a weak basis for the original decision because of its absence from the Constitution. Justice Alito and his fellow conservatives argue that because the Constitution does not reference privacy that it therefore does not exist as a right.
I am neither an attorney nor a constitutional scholar but it would appear from a layman’s perspective that privacy was such an inherent right that permeated several elements of the Constitution that it needed no specific mention. Second amendment court rulings as well as arguments advanced from its advocates are premised on a person’s need to protect their privacy in their own homes. Forbidding the government from requiring the housing of troops in their homes is a privacy matter. Not having to testify against oneself is a privacy matter. Not having to reveal one’s voting choices is a privacy matter. Privacy is the very essence of freedom of conscience an often overlooked aspect of the freedom of religion clause.
The absence of an explicit reference to the word privacy does not mean it wasn’t an intended right. The Constitution acknowledges that there are other rights not enumerated. Much of the initial resistance by James Madison and others to including a bill of rights was the concern that anything not specified would be construed as not a right. I would ask Justice Alito where are the words corporation, women, financial contributions to political campaigns, etc. to be found in the Constitution? The document was expected to protect individuals, even women who at the time were second class citizens, from governmental intrusion into their private world.
The prevailing majority on the Court wants the Constitution to be a flexible instrument when it comes to a conservative political agenda but rejects arguments that the founders sought an evolving governing structure that accommodated an unknowable future. Most were prescient enough to understand that the United States could not protect its citizens within the limitations of their 18th century world.
Vincent De Sanctis
Talbot County
Talbot County
Susan Olsen says
Thanks for writing this, Mr. DeSantis!
Excellent points!
Susan Olsen
Barbara Cook says
Excellent
Paul Rybon says
Clever insinuation from Mr Sanctis about the SCOTUS alleged rejection of privacy guarantees in the Bill Of Rights. Justice Thomas may have said it best. To paraphrase, implimation of laws regarding regulation of abortion procedures is best entrusted to the states. Incidentally, there is nothing about abortion that is private. The procedure involves practitioners who actually carry out the procedure. Those people are already regulated by carefully crafted state laws.
Bob Parker says
Mr. Rybon, The assertion that a surgical abortion is not “private” because it involves another person, regulated or not, is beyond belief. “Private” in this context refers to information or acts in which the state has no rights or status. In any event, Congress considers all medical information as privileged (i.e., private) under HIPPA. Even if that weren’t the case, by your definition any act involving more than 1 person would not be “private”! I seriously doubt that is a world anyone would want, do you?
Deirdre LaMotte says
The Trump legacy: a 12 year old victim of incest forced by the State to give birth to her sibling.
This country wouldn’t dream of forcing a convicted rapist to be neutered but now states would force a women to have that rapist’s child.
Abortion has been since time began and will never be eliminated. 5 of the 6 political hacks on the SC who ruled that
women have no protection of the own bodies, but the State does, are members of the same church that has protected priests from prosecution for pedophilia for centuries.
Rev Julia Hart says
The SCOTUS made the decision that the Government has jurisdiction over my body; any female body. I am not an autonomous being. I am chattel; property.
SCOTUS overstepped authority taking the right of autonomy away from females. I heard one commentator say that it is the first time in history that the SCOTUS has taken away a right.
One corrective to an off balanced Court is term limits. This MUST be accomplished.
Another is adding to their oath of office, that they swear NO allegiance to an appointing President, or any allegiance to any political party.This MUST be accomplished.
Add to their oath, while they must act and make decisions morally and ethically, they must NOT espouse any particular theology or religion.
This decision by the SCOTUS was not deliberated on with any thought, care, or concern for the girls, teens, and women of this country. How sad. How sick. But since we are not autonomous what we think doesn’t matter. We’ll see in November. We women have long historical and social memories.
Peace, Disturbed
Michael Davis says
Excellent commentary.
The Supreme Court is now a political institution serving the hard right political movement of this country. It no longer can claim it serves justice or rule of law.
Sharron Cassavant says
Cogent analysis. Thanks Mr. De Sanctis