Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[Big Bend Texas]

When this

So...if women were to get an abortion provider make house calls, that would be ok?

A right to privacy in the home doesn't give you a right to kill your children in the home at any age or stage in development.

 

[fncceo]

not true,, you can be patted down bit not searched,,

A pat-down search is also a search.

 

[bodecea]

No rights are "God given". If they were the whole world would have them.

Rights are natural.....unfortunately, most of the world has governments that take them away rather than protect them. That, at least, is the theory of our Constitution....to protect rights we are born with.....within reason (your right to swing your arm does not supercede my right to not get punched in the nose).

 

[bodecea]

A right to privacy in the home doesn't give you a right to kill your children in the home at any age or stage in development.

No children being killed........pay attention. But I guess you are like Tom Heck.....we do NOT have the right to privacy.

 

[progressive hunter]

A pat-down search is also a search.

a pat down is done without searching,,, a search is actually searching you and your belongings,,

 

[Big Bend Texas]

No children being killed........pay attention. But I guess you are like Tom Heck.....we do NOT have the right to privacy.

By definition human offspring, born or unborn are children.

You have no privacy rights with respect to killing children in or out of the home.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

a pat down is done without searching,,, a search is actually searching you and your belongings,,

A pat down is by definition a cursory search. See Terry v Ohio.

 

[progressive hunter]

A pat down is by definition a cursory search. See Terry v Ohio.

true,, but far different than a real search,,

 

[Ringtone]

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1973 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.


I assume that we are barking up the abortion tree here, trying to get at the right to an abortion that is based on the right to privacy. First, Roe v Wade declared that right to privacy as fundamental, even though there is no reference to the right to privacy in the US Constitution. But is it? Is that something that 9 unelected people should decide, or should it be codified into law by Congress? There is no stare decisis here where prior law dictates that position, and therefore the 1973 SC had no legal basis to make that right as a fundamental one.

That being so, their decision that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability is open to question. They had no legal basis to make that call; the decision concerning what outweighs what was not theirs to make; they in effect legislated law from the bench, which they do not have the authority to do. It should not be up to them to decide what outweighs what, that should be up to the Congress or the states to consider. Who are they to decide that viability should be the only determinate? Even if the right to privacy is fundamental, they have nothing to base the determination for when an abortion should be legal and when it shouldn't. That is not their call to make.

"Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest." Based on what law or prior ruling did they decide this? I don't believe there is one, they made it up out of thin air. Which is not within their purview; really, that decision ought to be up to the states to determine what their compelling state interest are, in the absence of any federal law.

The above is a well informed and cogent summary of the matter with one exception.

Roe v. Wade is predicated on the Griswold v. Connecticut line of decidendi regarding a supposed constitutional right of privacy.

In legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.​

​

Writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut, Douglas "used the term [more at cited the doctrine] when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific."​

In his opinion, Douglas "stated that the specific guarantees of the BILL OF RIGHTS have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area [i.e., the area of contraception].​

​

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.​

Read more: Penumbra - Further Readings - Justice, Griswold, Holmes, and Decision - JRank Articles Penumbra - Further Readings​

Griswold v. Connecticut declared that this right of general privacy is implicitly inherent to the collective penumbra of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

Hence, the right of privacy was formally established in Griswold v. Connecticut, and in Roe v. Wade, the Court extended this penumbra of privacy to entail relatively unfettered access to abortion during the first two trimesters.

 

[fncceo]

a pat down is done without searching,,, a search is actually searching you and your belongings,,

When you are arrested, any bags or containers deemed that you own or control will also be searched and their contents inventoried.

This is to provide proof that you are returned your property.

However, if any illicit property is uncovered, the search becomes evidentiary, as probably cause has been established.

 

[progressive hunter]

No children being killed........pay attention. But I guess you are like Tom Heck.....we do NOT have the right to privacy.

if you think we have a right to privacy then you should be able to show us where thats written??

 

[bodecea]

By definition human offspring, born or unborn are children.

You have no privacy rights with respect to killing children in or out of the home.

So you had scrambled chicken for breakfast this morning?

 

[bodecea]

if you think we have a right to privacy then you should be able to show us where thats written??

So you say we DON'T have a right to privacy. Very very telling. How many other rights do you want to deny Americans?

 

[progressive hunter]

So you say we DON'T have a right to privacy. Very very telling. How many other rights do you want to deny Americans?

what I am saying is I dont see that anywhere in our laws or constitution,, do you??

 

[Cassandro]

Do we?

Are you the Constitution?

 

[progressive hunter]

So you say we DON'T have a right to privacy. Very very telling. How many other rights do you want to deny Americans?

just curious,, what do you mean by privacy??

 

[fncceo]

No one has the privacy to do an illicit act.

 

[Oddball]

just curious,, what do you mean by privacy??

The"right to privacy" is a canard, in order for abortionists to rationalize their death cult.

They cling to it, even though the most left of leftist lawyers can agree that Roe, with its "right to privacy" canard, is terrible law.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

So you had scrambled chicken for breakfast this morning? View attachment 644594

Unless there's a blood spot in the egg, there's no embryo you idiot.

 

[struth]

No rights are "God given". If they were the whole world would have them.

they do.