The potential Supreme Court ruling should be about privacy

The potential Supreme Court ruling should be about privacy

Craig Farrand “The emphasis must be not on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy …” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, late Supreme Court Justice Hello Downriver, First, let’s get this out of the way: The bruhaha over the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion over Roe v. Wade is not about abortion. Nope, contrary to what the two entrenched sides contend — and regardless of the state laws that criminalize abortion, including Michigan’s — the core issue surrounding the high court’s impending ruling has to do with something more basic. More fundamental to our democratic republic. But as long as we debate the issue of abortion, those who oppose, win. But if we talk about what’s really at stake here, they lose. And what is that fundamental issue? Our inalienable right to privacy. No, the phrase isn’t in our Declaration of Independence nor can it be found in our Constitution. Strict constructionists — such as Justice Samuel Alito, who is a throwback to the 16th century — argue that since the phrase “right to privacy” doesn’t exist anywhere in the Constitution, it simply doesn’t exist. Of course, marriage doesn’t exist in either document, either, but it happens all the time. Likewise, the filibuster can’t be found in the Constitution’s articles — yet has consistently existed for Mitch McConnell to use as a convenient cudgel. The irrefutable truth is, however, that our fundamental right to privacy can be found in both documents. Indeed, this fundamental right can be […]

Click here to view original web page at The potential Supreme Court ruling should be about privacy

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.