A question about SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade

[TexasBushwhacker]

From Wikipedia:

"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion."

The original ruling was made based on the 14th Amendment, the CONSTITUTIONAL right to due process and the inherent right to privacy that right to due process provides. Why is this not argued? Has SCOTUS decided that women DO NOT have the right to due process and the inherent right to privacy when it comes to abortion, or any medical issue for that matter? I don't understand why every time a state tries to prohibit abortion that it isn't immediately struck down based on the original ruling.

Do women have the right to due process? Yes or no.

Does the government have a right to invade their privacy in ANY medical matters without due process? Yes or no?

The court ruled 7 - 2 to strike down the anti-abortion law in Texas, and set parameters for abortion laws in all 50 states. 6 of the 7 judges in agreement were Republican appointees!

Please, tell me what I'm getting wrong here.

[Bettie]

1. In this court?

I don't think they believe that women have due process. I suspect that their plan is to erode the idea of due process until it only applies to white men who own property. (Originalist views, remember, that means, turn it all back to the 18th century.)

There are several laws based on this and I suspect this court will be working overtime to overturn each and every one.

So, Marriage Equality, Birth Control, and others are likely on the chopping block on the way to a full-fledged Republic of Gilead.

[Kath2]

4. Absolutely.

Good luck with this court.

Three Trump appointees and we know their views. Yes, gay rights, birth control and abortion justice are in trouble.

[sanatanadharma]

2. Raw power, Supreme Power, and warped weltanschauung manifests dystopian results

Actions rooted in desire and raw power, plus a warped weltanschauung, results in dystopian outcomes.

[Pantagruel]

3. You just had to force me to google it, didn't you!

The meaning of Weltanschauung is a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint : worldview.

[LeftInTX]

5. Patients have a right to privacy, but practitioners records are not necessarily private

For instance if a doctor prescribes a controlled substance, such as an opioid it is put into DEA database.

If a patient shows a pattern, the doctor will stop prescribing. Likewise if a doctor shows a pattern, then he can get in trouble.

Some states ban certain procedures while others allow it. Some ban certain meds and others allow it. For instance Oregon has certain procedures for humane end of life, which would be illegal in Texas.

It becomes part of the medical practice act for each state.

Laws ban practitioners from performing procedures, so it is no longer a women's privacy issue or due process issue.



The woman is no longer part of the equation. It is all about the practitioner.

[Polybius]

6. The ruling has always confused me

If there's a right to privacy to do what you want with your own body, then why can't I take steroids? Part of the reason there's still fighting today is the consistency. Has the Court ever ruled on anything else about doing what you want with your own body?

I think the solution is to just enact a national abortion law.

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. I imagine you can take all the steroids you wish

Last edited Sat Dec 4, 2021, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

if you can find a doctor to prescribe them. There are legitimate uses for anabolic steroids. I had a friend that played pro football in Canada for a couple of years in the early 80s. He had an injury and anabolic steroids were prescribed briefly to help him heal quicker because of their muscle building properties. Unfortunately, they also caused some permanent heart damage and he had a heart attack in his late 20s. It didn't kill him though.

So eventually they banned steroid use in competitive athletes and bodybuilders. There was always the issue of the unfair advantage steroid users had over non-users, but they were banned because of the bad things they did to the body and behavior. They are schedule 3 drugs because of their potential for abuse. But you can certainly take them if you can find a doctor to prescribe them. You'll have a hard time competing in professional or olympic sports though, and most elite bodybuilding competitions.

I agree with you about abortion law though. In some ways, I think Roe v. Wade (and later Casey) was weak because it did allow the states to regulate abortion first on a trimester basis, then later on a fetal viability basis.

Frankly, I don't think it's anyone's fucking business but the mother's. IF there was a woman who for some reason wanted to abort a healthy 36 week old fetus (and that is phenomenally rare) she would have to find a doctor who would do it and that would be even more rare. It's kind of self regulating in that sense. Government regulation at any level is unnecessary. It is a medical procedure and should only be performed by licensed medical practitioners.

The only reason why anti-abortion laws started being enacted wasn't because of some love affair with the fetus, or even because of religious objections. It was after the Civil War because white MDs abhorred the idea of losing "business" to midwives, especially black midwives. Getting an abortion was relatively easy and even advertised, until "quickening" (fetal movement) which SURPRISE SURPRISE is about at the same time as the fetus has any chance of viability outside the womb; at about 20 weeks. At that point it weighs 9 to 11 ounces.

Of course, slave owners would have objected to their female slaves getting abortions. They were property and that fetus would be theirs to enslave or sell eventually. So even our abortion laws are rooted in racism and misogyny.

Women are fully capable of making decisions about their pregnancies all by themselves, but the further along they are, the more difficult and dangerous the abortion procedure is. It becomes more difficult to find a doctor who will perform an abortion past 20 weeks, and it becomes more expensive. In that sense, it is kind of self regulating. No government intervention is really necessary. Less than 2% of all abortions in the US are performed after 20 weeks, and the vast majority of those are because of fetal anomaly or maternal health. Again, no government intervention is really necessary because it so rarely happens.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. It protects that right to privacy *without excessive restriction.* It is not absolute.

In its ruling, the court determined that restrictions could be tied to trimesters.

[TexasBushwhacker]

9. Casey took it to "fetal viability" which is what is being pushed by Mississippi

Fetal weight at 15 weeks is about 4 ounces. A fetus doesn't even reach 1 pound until after 22 weeks.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. And personally, I think that is a weakness of Roe, and later Casey

Roe had the trimester system and Casey had the ambiguous "viability" system, but frankly, their both bullshit. Abortion is a medical procedure. It should not be under government control any more or less than any other medical procedure. The further along a woman is in her pregnancy, the more complicated and risky an abortion becomes. Finding a doctor who will perform an abortion 13 weeks should be relatively easy. At 20 weeks, quite a bit harder. In fact, just a little more than 1% of all abortions in the US are performed after 20 weeks.