After Dobbs, the right to privacy no longer exists
After Dobbs, the right to privacy no longer exists

After Dobbs, the right to privacy no longer exists

NEWYou can listen to Fox News articles now!

A few months ago, many of us were shocked to learn that a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio was forced to delay medical care and travel to Indiana to get the reproductive health care she needed. . Sadly she is just one example of how our basic right to bodily autonomy has been stripped away by the Supreme Court’s overturned decision in Roe v. Wade.

However, as this ruling threatens more than half of the American population, its impact on them The right to privacy goes further than you might think.

Basically, the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson v. Women’s Health Association, along with many other Supreme Court rulings including Roe v. Wade, they deal with the right to privacy, which is an “unenumerated right” – meaning it is not expressly stated in the Constitution. .

ROE V. WADE SUPREME COURT DECISION: READ WOMEN’S HEALTH DECISION DOBBS v. JACKSON

Abandoning nearly 50 years of precedent, the Dhoobbs court said that if a right is not enshrined in the Constitution, it needs to “dive deeply into the history and culture of this Nation,” and define it “in depth” and relies heavily on being broad. accepted by those in power at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Of course the right to privacy and reproductive health care, as well as a number of other rights, were not accepted by those in power at a time when women and many others were excluded from the legislative process. If that is the test when a right is constitutional, then what about the right to contraception? Your right to certain types of sexual relations? Same-sex marriage rights?

The majority of the Supreme Court clearly knew that these were obvious questions and brought them into their general argument. They even tried to tell us not to worry about these other rights – that the Dobbs opinion only applies to reproductive health care. But Justice Clarence Thomas proved that statement wrong when he said in his far-reaching opinion that the Supreme Court. it should review the constitution of other rights.

AFTER DOBBS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST PREDICTS CONFIDENTIAL ‘will be scrapped’

So, if the majority lays the foundation of the argument that the right to personal privacy does not exist in these cases – because the right to personal privacy did not exist for many people in 1868 – then they probably have a right to privacy. Privacy does not exist in most modern situations.

This may include things such as the right to privacy by post or email; Personal rights of movement or travel; the right to privacy in medical procedures and conditions; the right to private parenting decisions; digital privacy and data.

Read More :   Simon Viral Apk Bokeh Cabe Rawit Android and Iphone Latest Version

Unfortunately, we have already seen how the right to personal privacy is being taken away in these other situations.

FILE - Judge Clarence Thomas speaking at the Heritage Foundation Oct.  21, 2021, in Washington, DC.

FILE – Judge Clarence Thomas speaking at the Heritage Foundation Oct. 21, 2021, in Washington, DC.
(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

In Tennessee, lawmakers have just passed a law that prohibits doctors’ offices or pharmacies from sending certain prescription drugs. This is especially dangerous for those who rely on their medications to stay healthy such as those with lupus, arthritis, and Crohn’s disease.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

In Nebraska, police have charged a mother with helping her young daughter seek reproductive health care after Facebook turned over their private messages.

This case represents a breach of both digital and parental privacy and raises many universal questions: Do you have a digital privacy? What would stop the government from accessing other digital data to use against you? Are all parental rights to help children get health care and get help criminalized as well? The answer is already clear in some states – your right to privacy is not protected.

In Texas, James Weller rushed his wife Elizabeth to a nearby hospital to treat a serious pregnancy problem. But the doctors said they could not take care of her until Elizabeth became very ill, or the fetus died. James and Elizabeth were making travel arrangements to another state when Elizabeth’s health worsened enough that doctors were ready to induce labor. But if James and Elizabeth are forced to travel to another state to receive care, they could both be held accountable by those working to restrict travel to all state reproductive care facilities.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE NEWS APP

At the end of the day, the Dobbs ruling creates a potentially dangerous legal landscape. It’s not just one health system. It is about whether the government can intervene in any particular matter or not.

Which raises the biggest question for all of us: can any of us – men, women, children, liberals, conservatives – really feel comfortable and safe knowing that we now have no guaranteed right to personal privacy in our communities, our yards, inside us. Own houses?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

Source : www.foxnews.com