Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When a Pregnancy is Unwanted... [View all]lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)65. Blackmun got it right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What "government class" would that be? Taught by "the government" or about how government works?
Hekate
Sep 2013
#7
I hope you check back for the answers you've provoked. It's not "paranoia": we get trolls
Hekate
Sep 2013
#45
How complete strangers deal with unwanted pregnancies is none of my concern. Frankly,
smokey nj
Sep 2013
#14
If the state can prevent a woman from determining what to do (or not to do) with her pregnancy
Proud Liberal Dem
Sep 2013
#20
I agree with this, certainly! I was the product of an affair outside the marriage and
LiberalLoner
Sep 2013
#51
I agree with that. Woman's choice and only woman's choice until viability. (Edited to answer quests)
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#31
I disagree completely. This is a debate I have had a few times with people.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#43
Yes, we disagree. I don't think the appeals courts will agree with your interpretations.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#47
It would be very interesting to see what would happen regarding you last point which is right on.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#60
Steven, the artificial placenta takes us to an interesting excursion into bioethics...
Hekate
Sep 2013
#64
At work so I will have to read this later to give it the attention it deserves... nt
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#66
Question, do you know of any doctors who perform abortions on viable fetuses...
Hippo_Tron
Sep 2013
#75
I am not saying it happens. I am saying that until the fetus can survive outside the womb,
ejpoeta
Sep 2013
#86
P.S.: Men who oppose a woman's right to abortion can simply go fuck themselves.
Arugula Latte
Sep 2013
#53
Funny how your comments are replete with moral assumptions. I assume you realize this?
Gov101
Sep 2013
#80
On both boards I responded to accusations that the questions were biased, for opposite reasons.
Gov101
Sep 2013
#83
It's the woman's private decision and not for anyone to limit or to judge. n/t
cynatnite
Sep 2013
#71
WOW...since we tried to have a conversation with you in previous posts of yours and...
Tikki
Sep 2013
#73