You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #14: They may attack it on grounds having little to do with privacy. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. They may attack it on grounds having little to do with privacy.
One premise for Roe is that the fetus is entitled to more protection as it becomes more viable independent from the mother, hence the increasing prohibitions from trimester to trimester.

They may take an ironic page from Brown and assert that increasing scientific knowledge has made the fetus viable much earlier in gestation and that viability conyeys rights on the fetus entitling it to protection much much earlier in the pregnancy. They could argue that life trumps privacy at that stage, leaving untouched the right to privacy itself.

Don't forget, Plessy was ultimately overturned because the court held that separate but equal was impossible, not wrong, and Scott v Sanford was never overturned but instead was replaced with a Constitutional Amendment after a civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -ATTN Lawyers or Legal Minds: Question about Roe v Wade and Griswold in light of Palin redstate_democrat  Sep-30-08 08:48 PM   #0 
  - The response would be short and to the point:  ocelot   Sep-30-08 08:49 PM   #1 
  - So she would say, I think its wrong because a baby is in the stomach right after sex  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 08:52 PM   #2 
  - Read the dissenting opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833  Alhena   Sep-30-08 08:55 PM   #3 
  - Thank you very much.  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 08:57 PM   #4 
  - Thank you for pointing me to that case. Very enlightening.  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:24 PM   #9 
  - One thing that was pointed out  SheilaT   Sep-30-08 09:00 PM   #5 
  - Big Question, Brief Answer  rwenos   Sep-30-08 09:13 PM   #6 
  - Thank you so much! You made this very clear for me.  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:30 PM   #11 
  - I think they can go another way besides the Casey dissent.  abumbyanyothername   Sep-30-08 09:14 PM   #7 
  - And then how would they be able to conclusively say that life begins at conception?  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:28 PM   #10 
     - Interpreting what "life" means in the due process clause  abumbyanyothername   Sep-30-08 11:16 PM   #34 
  - Grsiwold is the basis for Roe  IWantAnyDem   Sep-30-08 09:17 PM   #8 
  - Ok, that makes sense. So, they could probably overturn both in the same case, right?  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:32 PM   #13 
  - I've never understood why a woman's right to her body isn't covered by the 9th amendment  davepc   Sep-30-08 09:31 PM   #12 
  - Whoa, that's a good point.  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:35 PM   #15 
  - Because the 10th Amendment gave that right to the states.  rug   Sep-30-08 09:39 PM   #16 
  - They may attack it on grounds having little to do with privacy.  rug   Sep-30-08 09:35 PM   #14 
  - Eisenstadt vs Baird-don't forget  KakistocracyHater   Sep-30-08 09:40 PM   #17 
  - Right, but the state law was not struck down on privacy grounds but on equal protection grounds.  rug   Sep-30-08 09:50 PM   #21 
  - Okay this is very interesting.  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:41 PM   #18 
     - Yes, that would be the outcome.  rug   Sep-30-08 09:43 PM   #19 
        - Alaska could theoretically create a law which says  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:51 PM   #22 
           - NARAL has been very vigilant in scrutinizing criminal laws that make causing the death of a fetus  rug   Sep-30-08 10:00 PM   #25 
  - There is no "real" Constitutional right to privacy. The word isn't anywhere in the document.  msallied   Sep-30-08 09:44 PM   #20 
     - Plessey had 58 years of precedence before it was reversed.  rug   Sep-30-08 09:52 PM   #23 
     - You make a good point, but...  msallied   Sep-30-08 10:01 PM   #26 
        - They will leap at the chance, saliva oozing from their maws.  rug   Sep-30-08 10:02 PM   #27 
           - I think it will depend on where the culture is in this country...  msallied   Sep-30-08 10:19 PM   #31 
     - I believe in a living Constitution. Even though privacy isn't explicit in the Constitution  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 09:58 PM   #24 
        - Well you pretty much described the divide perfectly.  msallied   Sep-30-08 10:10 PM   #28 
        - Yes, I understand what you're saying as far as having loose interpretation work against  redstate_democrat   Sep-30-08 10:21 PM   #33 
        - Well you pretty much described the divide perfectly.  msallied   Sep-30-08 10:10 PM   #29 
        - Privacy from a "Penumbra of Rights"  rwenos   Sep-30-08 10:11 PM   #30 
           - Oh I agree completely. lol  msallied   Sep-30-08 10:20 PM   #32 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC