HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Honest question: Why does...

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 07:55 PM

Honest question: Why does the 4th Amendment not give us a right to privacy of our own bodies?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This would seem to me that if someone were "secure in their person" against "searches and seizures" it would seem that we have autonomy over our own bodies, male or female. (including reproductive parts).

Also the ninth Amendment seems to be glossed over in this whole "No right to privacy" argument that this bunch of imams that have current control of our Extreme Court. It would seem to me making decisions over out own bodies would be one of the most basic of the not enumerated rights.


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


Thoughts?



22 replies, 1529 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Honest question: Why does the 4th Amendment not give us a right to privacy of our own bodies? (Original post)
mackdaddy Jun 2022 OP
TygrBright Jun 2022 #1
Ms. Toad Jun 2022 #6
LeftInTX Jun 2022 #2
deRien Jun 2022 #3
LudwigPastorius Jun 2022 #15
pazzyanne Jun 2022 #17
RockRaven Jun 2022 #4
cloudboy07 Jun 2022 #20
Ms. Toad Jun 2022 #5
LeftInTX Jun 2022 #10
TheRealNorth Jun 2022 #11
Ms. Toad Jun 2022 #13
colsohlibgal Jun 2022 #7
ultralite001 Jun 2022 #8
multigraincracker Jun 2022 #9
cloudboy07 Jun 2022 #22
former9thward Jun 2022 #12
ChoppinBroccoli Jun 2022 #14
Freethinker65 Jun 2022 #21
budkin Jun 2022 #16
qazplm135 Jun 2022 #18
denbot Jun 2022 #19

Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:03 PM

1. "Secure in their persons" implies it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:34 PM

6. No, it doesn't.

It is simply a restriction on the government's right to stop you (seize) or search you (search).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:03 PM

2. Medical procedures aren't absolute fourth amendment issues

I can't go and obtain whatever medical procedure I want. (I can't go and get a pig's heart implanted in me )

Limiting medical procedures aren't necessarily search and seizure issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:12 PM

3. What about

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Unfortunately, the right wingers take that to mean no abortions but I think a case could be made that individuals have the Right to decide what the pursuit of Happiness means to them. If one's pursuit of Happiness doesn't include having children, that should be one's "right". If having a child endangers one's life, that deprives one of one's unalienable right to Life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deRien (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:08 PM

15. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document, in the sense that it...


lays out the structure of the government, and what it can and cannot do.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are.

I would argue that the Ninth Amendment protects a right to privacy, but the goddamned Republican theocrats on the current Court don't see it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LudwigPastorius (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:35 PM

17. "The Constitution and Bill of Rights are."

Unfortunately, this court did not include the Bill of Rights in considering their decisions.

“Originalism has been the reigning constitutional theory of legal conservatives since the election of Ronald Reagan,” a contributor to the National Review wrote recently, with glowing approval. The theory, which views jurisprudence as frozen in time, flatly rejects the idea of the Constitution as a a living and evolving document and instead demands that we interpret its provisions exactly as the framers intended..."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-supreme-court-s-faux-originalism/ar-AAYST7X?ocid=uxbndlbing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:15 PM

4. With this Republican SCOTUS, it literally doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

They issue rulings based on what they want, not what is. They start with the conclusion, and backfill some hand waving and bullshit to obscure that fact to the credulous and naive. In that environment, parsing the language of an amendment seeking to understand why this or why not that is a waste of time.

Their decisions are just about one thing: power. They have the power, so they dictate to others. And there's only one way to deal with them: power.

Can we acquire the right amount of power and vest in it people with the will to act to fix this? I certainly hope so. The clock is ticking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:58 PM

20. we have a S.C. that has been drinking bottled water from Flint,Michigan!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:33 PM

5. The 4th amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It does not grant rights beyond the right to be unreasonably stopped or taken into custody by the state (seizure)- or the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Think of it this way - if a state makes it illegal to use heroin, you can't use heroin under the Fourth amendment based on the argument that you are entitled to bodily atuomony.

You can, however, bar police from seizing you (stopping you on the street to gather evidence against you) and from testing your blood (search) to determine whether you are committing the crime (using heroin) unless they can justify the need based on probable cause.

So it might, in some circumstances, keep them out of your period tracker. But it isn't an affirmative grant to do whatever the heck you want with your body.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:54 PM

10. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 09:18 PM

11. I could see the 4th Amendment applying in certain situations....

It may prevent a state from forcing you to take a pregnancy test or even trying to obtain your medical records if they think you may be pregnant and/or suspecting that you may have (or have had) an abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheRealNorth (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 09:37 PM

13. That wasn't the question raised.

The question raised was whether the 4th amendment grants you autonomy over your body. In other words, can't the 4th amendment be used to prevent criminalization of abortion. The answer is no.

Both of your examples are searches (to uncover evidence of a crime) - and the question in that instance would be whether they are reasonable.

The 4th amendment doesn't keep the state from criminalizing activity - it only requires them to go through the proper steps before searching you to discover evidence that you engaged in the activity which they have criminalized (becasuse the Supreme Court said they could).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:35 PM

7. The Supremes Have Gone Over The Line

Not sure how to go about fixing this. Thomas is pretty chubby I suppose he could pitch over any minute but we can’t count on that.

And adding members is risky they could do it too.

I think the biggest help now would be to do away with the Electoral College, which gave us Fat Donnie. I mean is this really a democracy if you can win by losing?

I hope we eventually get on the right path but there is no guarantee we will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:37 PM

8. What freaking amendment...

gives the Supreme Court the right -- or license -- to practice medicine???

That is all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 08:51 PM

9. I get tired of all of those damn

Loop holes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to multigraincracker (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 11:16 PM

22. S.C. is a big loop hole for the republican taliban !

 

TIME FOR A BIG CHANGE IN CONGRESS CRITTER'S ! time to take the garbage in the government! The U.S. citizens government!!! It's not the republican's government, not the democrats government, not the Independents government, --- It's the damn U.S.citizens! get over it & politicians are wasting our time & f$#King money! get your shit in order or get the hell out ! People are fed with ya's ! pissed of tax payer !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 09:26 PM

12. If the 4th amendment gave that right

then no men could have ever been drafted. The draft allowed the government to seize a man's body and do whatever they needed to do with it,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 09:40 PM

14. 13th Amendment Might Be A Stronger Argument

As a criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that the Court's decisions over the years have SIGNIFICANTLY worn away at the 4th Amendment. There are so many exceptions now that it's almost impossible to make a winning "illegal search" argument anymore. And the things that aren't covered by an exception can all make it into evidence with a simple warrant. Yes, they have to go to a judge and show probable cause, but anymore, they just go to the judge, the judge says, "What's your probable cause?", they answer, "We think there's evidence of a crime in there," and the judge signs the warrant. Basically meaningless.

Now, on the other hand, if you were to argue that being forced to carry a pregnancy to term constituted "involuntary servitude," you might be able to make some headway there. However, the Supreme Court has eroded the 13th Amendment as well. When I was in law school, I wrote a paper on the 13th Amendment as it applies to the military draft. It turns out that the Supreme Court ruled that the draft doesn't violate the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude because...........well..........we NEED the draft. No kidding, THAT was their "legal" reasoning.

I would also think that there's an Equal Protection argument in there too, because not all religions believe that life begins at conception. So if you're a member of one of those other religions, you are being denied Equal Protection of the laws. But that argument SHOULD HAVE been made during the Dobbs hearings, and the Court SHOULD HAVE considered it in their opinion, even if it wasn't raised. The fact of the matter is that this Court had their minds made up before they even heard this case, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Which is why I also believe that ANY challenge to Dobbs on Constitutional grounds will fail. They just plain won't listen to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 11:08 PM

21. If the State eminent domains one's uterus to house an embryo, shouldn't one get just compensation?

I would think the State taking control of a woman's uterus would require the State pays her for the time she is denied control over it. The State should also pay the cost of any medical care involved and should give back the uterus in the same condition prior to the temporary seizure. She should be able to sue for any damages done along with any lost wages, and perhaps additional for pain and suffering.

Of course, the current SCOTUS might argue females have no rights and are only breeders for the State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:11 PM

16. Because Jesus

Also freedom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:37 PM

18. The correct answer is

that privacy is all throughout the Constitution. It's explicit or implicit in the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and I'd argue even the 2d (although that's a little more tenuous).

Their answer boils down to a fetus equals a person, or even a zygote equals a person, and thus their right to live supersedes.

Of course, it's really about riling up voters to vote against their economic interests to hold back the evil libs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2022, 10:56 PM

19. Seems simple, direct, and innately true.

A most interesting observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread