Right to privacy vs. Freedom

[micky]

Stuart, in the Ruth Bader Ginsberg thread said:
>For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
>implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
>privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
>create a privacy issue,

Why is it necessary to go this multi-step route?

Why isn't it enough to say that in a free country, everyone is free to
do what he wants unless there is a legitimate state interest in
restricting it?

> and are for the most part between a patient
>and his or her doctor. A fetus does have rights that must be
>respected, but (they said) that the rights had to be balanced. A
>fetus would have rights that the State could protect, but only after
>it could live itself outside the womb. For the three months before
>that they gave the State the right to restrict abortion but only in
>cases that there was some serious state interest. For the initial
>three months, the State could not restrict abortions if a woman and
>her doctor decided that it was in the woman's best interest.

WRT abortion, I think there are legitimate state interests like you have
above and conceivably even more those, but for other acts, that Clarence
Thomas would like to restrict, iirc, use of birth control, homosexual
marriage (or is he also referring to homosexual sex?), interracial
marriage (He probably isn't including that), and others I can't remember
right now, I can see no legitimate state interest in restricting any of
the others.

(Abortion is unique.)

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[Barry Gold]

On 9/6/2022 10:55 PM, micky wrote:
> WRT abortion, I think there are legitimate state interests like you have
> above and conceivably even more those, but for other acts, that Clarence
> Thomas would like to restrict, iirc, use of birth control, homosexual
> marriage (or is he also referring to homosexual sex?), interracial
> marriage (He probably isn't including that), and others I can't remember
> right now, I can see no legitimate state interest in restricting any of
> the others.
>
> (Abortion is unique.)

Yes. Attempts to regulate sex, birth control, etc. fail "Rational Basis
Review": is the rule "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government
interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

The government presumably does have an interest in protecting the
unborn, so laws against abortion pass Rational Basis Review.

One might make a case that privacy is protected under the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to find any
"unenumerated" rights in the 9th. Possibly because it could easily
become a "Fortunatus purse" of rights.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[RichD]

On September 6, micky wrote:
>> For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
>> implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
>> privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
>> create a privacy issue,
>
> Why is it necessary to go this multi-step route?
> Why isn't it enough to say that in a free country, everyone is free to
> do what he wants unless there is a legitimate state interest in
> restricting it?

28th Amendment:

Whereas, the right to privacy is immutable, the right to arrangements
of mutual consent, by persons or parties of sound mind and good repute,
shall not be infringed, except in such cases where those arrangements
might reasonably constitute a threat to public safety.

Nor shall any mandated terms or conditions be imposed on such
arrangements.

The common law of commerce and contracts shall not be affected
by this amendment.

SEC, minimum wage, professional licensing, housing and hiring discrimination,
rent control, price controls.... BOOM!

--
Rich

[Barry Gold]

We likes it!