If the court overturns all privacy rights precedents?

[independentusa]

It will mean that laws like HIPPA can be overturned and your health records could be open to the government. This could easily happen so that states could insure they know who is pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy. If could mean when you apply fo a position, the company might be able to see you physical and mental health record. So it is not just Roe that will be gone, your privacy might be next.

 

[Craig234]

It will mean that laws like HIPPA can be overturned and your health records could be open to the government. This could easily happen so that states could insure they know who is pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy. If could mean when you apply fo a position, the company might be able to see you physical and mental health record. So it is not just Roe that will be gone, your privacy might be next.

As I wrote in a post recently, I think the phrase 'right to privacy' is misleading, as a label for a category of rights. HIPPA, as I understand, is not based on a constitutional right, but on a law, and not affected by the SC corruption. It just sounds related because of "privacy". The rulings threatened include contraception, gay rights, and abortion.

 

[Integrityrespec]

It will mean that laws like HIPPA can be overturned and your health records could be open to the government. This could easily happen so that states could insure they know who is pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy. If could mean when you apply fo a position, the company might be able to see you physical and mental health record. So it is not just Roe that will be gone, your privacy might be next.

What made abortion a privacy right? It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. In 1973 the court came to a decision and then went looking for a way to support their decision. Oddly the used parts of the Constitution that were not even part of the argument made by the left.

 

[NWRatCon]

As I wrote in a post recently, I think the phrase 'right to privacy' is misleading, as a label for a category of rights. HIPPA, as I understand, is not based on a constitutional right, but on a law, and not affected by the SC corruption. It just sounds related because of "privacy". The rulings threatened include contraception, gay rights, and abortion.

And more. It undercuts the whole line of cases regarding "expectation of privacy" in the 4th Amendment, Katz, etc. First Amendment, Fifth Amendment. Ironically, the opposite of the view espoused regarding covid restrictions by the same Justices.

 

[NatMorton]

Quick, everyone! The shock from the Dobbs decision is starting peter out. Shovel more fear into the furnace. Hurry!!

 

[Craig234]

Ironically, the opposite of the view espoused regarding covid restrictions by the same Justices.

That happens in result-driven judges. Imagine if someone tries to apply their Bush v. Gore ruling to get a Democratic president. It's like McConnell's "principle" against confirming judges the year before an election - case by case.

 

[Indlib]

What made abortion a privacy right?

The 9th amendment.

It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. In 1973 the court came to a decision and then went looking for a way to support their decision.

Speculation.

Oddly the used parts of the Constitution that were not even part of the argument made by the left.

 

[Lursa]

What made abortion a privacy right? It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. In 1973 the court came to a decision and then went looking for a way to support their decision.

The rights to marry and to have children and to have consensual sex were also not mentioned. THey are all recognized as rights under the 9th Amendment. And they all are supported by the same precedents (or are used as precedents) as the RvW decision...mostly 14th Due Process and 4th Amendment Privacy.

Previously posted:

Most people are using the word 'privacy' too literally.​

​

The court deliberations for the different precedents based on privacy a) were not for the most part decided by the RvW bench. I dont think any were. And b) were very clear on how they were being applied. It's not about 'hiding' information from others, it's about the right to conduct marriage, contraception, reproduction, medical decisions, etc without intrusion from the govt. That the govt had no right to decide those things for or deny them to individuals.​

 

[Lursa]

Oddly the used parts of the Constitution that were not even part of the argument made by the left.

Agreed. And Justices David Souter and RBG agreed as well. There are other Const. rights that could have been used. It was a poorly crafted decision that was focused on one aspect...an important aspect...of abortion. But still only that one thing:

RvW specifically decided that states may not ban the safer medical procedure of elective abortion. The procedure was safer than pregnancy/childbirth and they found that women had the right to choose the safer procedure. They also referred to the 9th A in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invented it'...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)​

​

Why would there need to be a right to abortion?​

​

Because it was needed **to protect women** To enable them to choose something much safer than pregnancy/childbirth...there would be no need to protect women's right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy (health decisions), and due process if some states were not denying women those protections recognized under federal law (the Const). The RvW decision clarified women are entitled to those protections. States may not supersede that.​

​

RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth​

Why should women not be allowed the safer medical procedure if they choose it? The unborn have no legal standing to affect that. The govt is obligated to protect women, and to protect our Const rights.

 

[Jay59]

It will mean that laws like HIPPA can be overturned and your health records could be open to the government. This could easily happen so that states could insure they know who is pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy. If could mean when you apply fo a position, the company might be able to see you physical and mental health record. So it is not just Roe that will be gone, your privacy might be next.

Congress can write laws to protect privacy. The difference is that they are laws and not rights.

The 9th amendment.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

Speculation.

No longer. Now it has a Supreme Court case backing it up.

 

[independentusa]

As I wrote in a post recently, I think the phrase 'right to privacy' is misleading, as a label for a category of rights. HIPPA, as I understand, is not based on a constitutional right, but on a law, and not affected by the SC corruption. It just sounds related because of "privacy". The rulings threatened include contraception, gay rights, and abortion.

Actually the Court could say that the law that the HIPPA is based on is unconstitutional.

 

[Craig234]

Actually the Court could say that the law that the HIPPA is based on is unconstitutional.

They could but that has nothing to do with the recent rulings about right to privacy. There is nothing indicating HIPPA is in danger.

 

[NatMorton]

That happens in result-driven judges. Imagine if someone tries to apply their Bush v. Gore ruling to get a Democratic president. It's like McConnell's "principle" against confirming judges the year before an election - case by case.

@Linuxcooldude, earlier tonight I mentioned to you the amazing ability folks on the left have to ignore reality, and I thought you would find this a another good example.

Get this: he’s defending Roe, a judge-imposed law that created a very specific national abortion policy on all fifty states, yet somehow, some way, it’s the Dobbs majority — a group of judges who opted to leave abortion law up to the states and knowing full well there would be range of state-level abortion laws, from abortion rights in the third trimester to complete abortion bans — who are somehow “result-driven.”

This isn’t jus at flight from reality. It’s construction of an alternate reality.

 

[Northern Light]

It will mean that laws like HIPPA can be overturned and your health records could be open to the government. This could easily happen so that states could insure they know who is pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy. If could mean when you apply fo a position, the company might be able to see you physical and mental health record. So it is not just Roe that will be gone, your privacy might be next.

The court will side with corporate invasion of privacy, giving them more power to control our lives, and it will be called "the free market." Mark my words.

 

[NatMorton]

The court will side with corporate invasion of privacy, giving them more power to control our lives, and it will be called "the free market." Mark my words.

Oh shit. He’s figured out our plans.

We’ll need to accelerate “Phase 2.”

 

[Indlib]

Congress can write laws to protect privacy. The difference is that they are laws and not rights.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

Yes. Glad you looked it up. Madison would be proud.

No longer. Now it has a Supreme Court case backing it up.

True. Just like any constitutional right has the potential to be.

Your point?

 

[Jay59]

Yes. Glad you looked it up. Madison would be proud.

It's important that you know when someone gets your jokes or smells you

True. Just like any constitutional right has the potential to be.

Not like any Constitutional right. Those need to be written in the Constitution. An example is the right to bear arms.

Your point?

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as an exhaustive listing. Rights found in common law could continue in force although they did not have the weight of Constitutional rights.

 

[Chillfolks]

If you say it’s in the name of public saftey people are willing to give up the notion of privacy in many cases

 

[Indlib]

It's important that you know when someone gets your jokes or smells you


Not like any Constitutional right. Those need to be written in the Constitution. An example is the right to bear arms.

Not really. Heller is just a court case, just like roe v Wade. With a stacked court it could be over turned.

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as an exhaustive listing. Rights found in common law could continue in force although they did not have the weight of Constitutional rights.

They did have the weight of constitutional rights. That is why it took SCOTUS to over turn it for the states.

 

[Cope]

Agreed. And Justices David Souter and RBG agreed as well. There are other Const. rights that could have been used. It was a poorly crafted decision that was focused on one aspect...an important aspect...of abortion. But still only that one thing:

RvW specifically decided that states may not ban the safer medical procedure of elective abortion. The procedure was safer than pregnancy/childbirth and they found that women had the right to choose the safer procedure. They also referred to the 9th A in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invented it'...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)​

​

Why would there need to be a right to abortion?​

​

Because it was needed **to protect women** To enable them to choose something much safer than pregnancy/childbirth...there would be no need to protect women's right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy (health decisions), and due process if some states were not denying women those protections recognized under federal law (the Const). The RvW decision clarified women are entitled to those protections. States may not supersede that.​

​

RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth​

Why should women not be allowed the safer medical procedure if they choose it? The unborn have no legal standing to affect that. The govt is obligated to protect women, and to protect our Const rights.

As many times as you post this, people will continue to point at that, AT SOME POINT, that unborn (your term) becomes a life, and THAT life also needs protecting. This is the differentiation between all those other privacy rights and abortion. They are not remotely the same and it is a disservice to conflate the two.

 

[Jay59]

Not really. Heller is just a court case, just like roe v Wade. With a stacked court it could be over turned.

Any decision can be overturned just like any law can be repealed and even the Constitution can be amended. Just this morning, the stay in Mexico rule was overturned.

The difference between Heller and Roe is that Heller relies on ink on paper and Roe did not.

They did have the weight of constitutional rights.

Incorrect. If nothing else, Dobbs should have made that clear.

That is why it took SCOTUS to over turn it for the states.

SCOTUS orders are federal. It takes federal to remove federal.

 

[Indlib]

Any decision can be overturned just like any law can be repealed and even the Constitution can be amended. Just this morning, the stay in Mexico rule was overturned.

The difference between Heller and Roe is that Heller relies on ink on paper and Roe did not.

That is a distinction without a difference. Either way Heller and Roe v Wade are simply court cases.

Incorrect. If nothing else, Dobbs should have made that clear.

Please clarify.

Is it your contention that all unenumerated rights are subject to the whims of the states and not constitutional rights for all Americans?

SCOTUS orders are federal. It takes federal to remove federal.

 

[Jay59]

That is a distinction without a difference. Either way Heller and Roe v Wade are simply court cases.

It is a defining difference. If nothing else, Dobbs is clear on that point.

Please clarify.

See above.

Is it your contention that all unenumerated rights are subject to the whims of the states and not constitutional rights for all Americans?

In spite of the pejorative wording, states are the natural jurisdiction. The Constitution also directs unenumerated issues to the states.

Amendment X​

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.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

On one side of the argument, you have authoritarian over reaching government fantasies by Christian/Republicans and on the other side; you have the concept of liberty and freedom, the bedrock of Americanism.

Just remember when trumpers, republicans, and Christians say anything about freedom and liberty, they are lying.

 

[Indlib]

It is a defining difference. If nothing else, Dobbs is clear on that point.


See above.


In spite of the pejorative wording, states are the natural jurisdiction.

While I disagree that states should have the power to take away people rights to travel, marriage, presumption of innocence etc; I respect your honesty.

The Constitution also directs unenumerated issues to the states.

Amendment X​

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.

I believe you are misinterpreting the 10th amendment. It doesn't direct unenumerated rights to the states...actually quite the opposite.

Your argument actually flies in the face of the entire federalist/anti federalist argument for both the 9th and 10th amendment and would make the 9th amendment itself serve absolutely no purpose.

We have enumerated rights like the 2nd.

We have unenumerated rights, based on constitutional interpretation by SCOTUS ...

...And the tenth amendment gets the rest.