How would it breach a woman’s right to privacy if the state prohibited abortion clinics and medication?
- Friday Nov 20,2009 02:29 PM
- By diddy
- In Others
If the state just refused to accept a duty to permit abortion services and medication, how would this infringe on a pregnant woman’s right to privacy?
Obviously the Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot restrict abortion, but how was it inferred from a right to privacy that the infrastructure itself must therefore be permitted?
It’s a private matter if she self-performs and practically it would be difficult to police anyway so that’s why the issue is not whether abortion itself should be legal but whether there is a duty imposed on the state to permit the infrastructure or medication necessary for its performance.
abortion medication*
Not all medical procedures are permitted however.
You can chose any legal medical procedure and yes at the moment abortion is a legal medical procedure
Carter, I agree she is entitled to an abortion as a medical procedure for medical reasons that threaten her life or cause harm determinable by a medical professional just like someone is entitled to medical procedures for medical reasons like electrocution.
However, it does not explain how it is thereby inferred that she has a right to abortion as a contraceptive.
I suppose the argument is the state owes a duty to protect and therefore if she needs it she’s entitled to it.
If she just wants it for say postponing childbirth that’s not a medical reason or a need, it’s a want. and the state owes no duty to permit it.
I agree carter, but I’m addressing the point of law regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling that a state cannot restrict abortion in any way.
They could have prohibited the services if it were not somehow inferred from a right to privacy that the service should be made readily available.
I cannot see how that translates logically.
I see what you mean imposter.
It was inferred from a right to reproduce that a woman also has the right to control her reproduction.
Even though the concepts are actually quite different, Justice Blackmun and the majority in Roe pretty much just assumed it applied as well
As I pointed out above carter, no one is stopping women self-performing.
Thus the right to privacy is upheld there.
But I suppose we’ve come back to the point about access. I do not agree that access is somehow derived from privacy but that’s my opinion
Actually I’ve tried my best to keep moral opinions out of this.
The choice to self-perform, even if it is unfortunate is not a legal argument why abortion should be available on demand.
People choose to harm themselves. After she self-performs we owe a duty to provide medical services but permitting the procedure of abortion in a clinic is not a state duty in the same way as an emo wanting to slit their wrists.
Don’t try to bring personhood into the discussion imposter. It is irrelevant as to whether a woman has a right to access a specific procedure.
A fetus is not a person in law.. now what?
However, like animals the law can impose duties for its care
"If you have the right to speak freely, it is fair to assume you also have the right to remain silent"
Yes and you have the right to not reproduce. But this only extends to your choice to use preventive measures like not having sex or using contraception.
By definition you have an offspring (check a dictionary) from conception. From there you are not choosing to not reproduce, you’re choosing to terminate the product.
Firstly I think you’ll find the term offspring is far more relevant than personhood considering people actually have legal rights by virtue of their citizenship, not their personhood.
Illegal immigrants for example have almost no legal rights.
As for offspring or child this is addressed in cases where duty of care in tort is discussed and criminal neglect regarding the unborn offspring/child is also addressed.
Case. Regina McKnight charged with homicide and child abuse for imbibing cocaine during pregnancy.
"You are misreading the decision. It doesn’t say that doctors "have to" perform an abortion. It simply says that it is unconstitutional to make a law banning abortion"
That’s not what I argued though… I’m talking about access to abortion derived from right to privacy.
Why should the court prevent the democratically elected legislature deciding what services should be permitted?
As I said she can perform in the privacy of her home.
Exactly so how is this relevant to our discussion?
I’m not arguing that by virtue of being an offspring or child that a fetus has a right to live..
I’m just saying that the right to terminate it is not implied by its lack of personhood.
Furthermore I think you will find that the conviction was overturned due to an unfair trial not on a point of law.
Exactly, a right to bear arms does not necessarily infer a right to purchase them.
A right to abort similarly does not necessarily infer a right to procure one from a medical professional
She was granted post-conviction relief.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina did not address the previous court’s ruling regarding the case.
As far as I’m aware it is legal precedent
Exactly, can you have a right to something that imposes a duty on someone else to exercise it?
In the case of the state I think the answer is obvious; the state can impose duties on anyone and can accept any duty or reject it.
I suppose the Supreme Court partially upheld this in the case of abortion by giving the state the right to restrict third trimester abortions and funding
"Hence, the mother’s right to not procreate outweighs the fetus’s lack of rights."
Well yea if we’re just talking about rights I agree with you there.
However, if the state imposed a duty via legislation restricting when a woman can abort this overrides her rights.
For example your constitutional right to be free of servitude does not extend to conscription or jury service which was ruled by the Supreme Court as duties individuals owe the state.
Abiding by laws is another duty obviously
The United States Supreme Court already refused to hear the case. It is precedent
The law I mean can impose duties on anyone..
Abortion Clinics, Abortion Procedure, Abortion Services, Cause Harm, Childbirth, Contraceptive, Control, Electrocution, Infrastructure, Medical Procedure, Medical Procedures, Medical Reason, Medical Reasons, Medication, Pregnant Woman, Private Matter, Reproduction, Right To Privacy, Supreme Court, Woman Right
5 Comments
The decision in Roe v Wade actually hinges on the justices designating abortion to be a "fundamental right." This was not really new, the right to procreate had long been considered a "fundamental right." It is only a small leap of logic to assume then that the right to not procreate was also a fundamental right. In order to infringe upon a fundamental right, the state must prove a "compelling state interest." Hence, it was ruled that a woman’s "fundamental right" to not procreate outweighed any state interest until such a date that the fetus was "viable" (able to live outside the womb). "Fundamental rights" were initially interpreted from the Fifth Amendment and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. Hence, you get a decision that essentially says a woman has a right to an abortion because not doing so would infringe on her right to privacy…however privacy as you would usually interpret it had little to do with the decision…
ADD: You can disagree if you like, that is the nature of discussion. However, there is nothing illogical or assumptive about Blackmun’s assertion. If you have the right to speak freely, it is fair to assume you also have the right to remain silent. The part that the justices had to decide on which is controversial is they had to decide when a fetus becomes a person with fundamental rights of their own…they determined that this occurs when a fetus is "viable." This is somewhat subjective and has been fine-tuned over time. You have to remember that not all people (including me) believe that a fetus is a person from conception. If it is not a person, it can’t be murderered and it has no fundamental rights.
ADD2: You are misreading the decision. It doesn’t say that doctors "have to" perform an abortion. It simply says that it is unconstitutional to make a law banning abortion. Free market is what makes abortion doctors…they want to perform the procedure whether for money or personal belief. As to the question of personhood, I assure you that it is of the upmost importance in this discussion. As to your comparison to animals, the answer is simple. Animals don’t have any fundamental rights. However, people don’t have a fundamental right to torture animals either. So, if the voters want to make a law banning it…that’s fine.
ADD3: We are not discussing an "offspring," we are discussing a "person." Since only "persons" have rights under the Constitution. The legal definition of "person" is simply; "a human being." (check a legal dictionary) What makes a "human being" is very much up to debate. Also, your interpretation of what is and is not OK when serving the fundamental right to not reproduce is exactly that…your interpretation…the Court’s interpretation was obviously different.
ADD4: The simple fact that there are other requirements including that you have to be a citizen of the United States in order to receive the protection of the Constitution in no way affects Roe v Wade. Also, you might want to check your facts. The Regina McKnight conviction was overturned.
ADD5: Now that is a good question…I suppose it would be considered an attack on the right itself. For instance, we have the right to bear arms…what if we made the selling of weapons illegal? Would that be Constitutional? Everyone could make their own…right?
ADD6: The right to not procreate stems from the right to procreate via the 5th and 14th amendments. It in no way is derived from the fetus’s personhood or lack thereof. However, the fetus has no rights at all if it is not a person. Hence, the mother’s right to not procreate outweighs the fetus’s lack of rights. Also, when a decision is overturned, the whole decision is overturned. It is not case law until a case can be produced that withstands appeal.
ADD7: Now we agree on something. It does not necessarily mean that. However, such an interpretation goes back to the beginning. Also, are rights really rights if someone can pass a law making them almost impossible to benefit from? Why have rights at all?
ADD8: Wrong…they can feel free to appeal their case to the Supreme Court…if there the Court overturns the ruling of the Appelate Court, then it would be precedent…right now it is nothing. Also, it is not unusual for the Court to dodge the question for political reasons. They know all they have to do is overturn the case for any reason and it has the same effect.
Because the right to privacy refers to contraception and it was expanded to include this - remember contraception used to be illegal.
I think the right to abortion follows under the right to medical care non interference in doctor patient relationship.
Basic healthcare needs also provide for people who electrocute themselves through their own fault, for those who end up in hospital through drug and alchohol abuse etc. Who complains so vehemently about medical resources for that?
If, as you state, it is not about the right or wrong of abortion, then if she is entitled to medical assistance (and everyone should be), then she can get whatever legal procedure she likes.
edit - Voila! The addition demonstrates that it IS indeed the legality (read morality) that matters to abortion’s opponents.
We come full circle to the revolving argument of whether early abortions of pebble-sized agglomorations is wicked or not. For it isn’t women going having full-term babies pulled out of them for the purposes of contraception.
edit - In a healthcare consumer economy no-one can stop people getting legal procedures. It then boils down to the problem where people who can afford it, can get it. Like turning the clock back 100 years.
edit: Well as I understand it, the right to privacy includes the ability to do things without the state or the law interfering. As abortion is deemed legal (except in clearly resricted cases), the right to privacy also applies here. That medical services of legal procedures are provided for this (among other things) has no direct relation to that ruling, it is just a fact of medical resource provision for legal treatments.
edit - How on earth can a woman with no medical knowledge ’self-perform’ without causing damage? Now you’re being silly. You wouldn’t suggest any other person wanting controversial treatment should be their own clinician. You may advocate the coat-hanger approach (as I recall from answers past), but that’s your moral convictions getting the better of your common sense.
There is not, nor can it be logically or legally argued, a breach of privacy if the state prohibits abortion clinics or medication. It is not a privacy issue at all, but a personal rights issue and a medical rights issue. Seeing as the states and the federal gov. already control medical services and medications through the FDA and state agencies, and control who can provide such services and medicines in general through liscencing I can see no legal hurdles at all that would stand up to honest scrutiny. On top of that, the overwhelming fact is that murder, the taking of a human life, is considered morally and legally wrong in nearly every culture on the planet, and has been so in any known human group dynamic in recorded history. Now, having said that I know I will incurr the wrath and scorn of all sorts of folks, telling me of the horrors of children raised by bad parents or children with no parents, beatings, incest, and a host of other atrocities, all of which do not change the fact that we are KILLING OUR CHILDREN and apparently it gets easier to do all the time. I realize the diviseveness of this issue, and I feel for anyone torn up trying to make the list of pro’s and con’s about it, but let’s face it, we can do better.
What a rant!
You must be exhausted.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Leave a reply