3 ms·

The entire underpinnings of Roe v Wade rely on the concept that we as individuals have a constitutional right to privacy. That was the logic used for the ruling

The entire underpinnings of Roe v Wade rely on the concept that we as individuals have a constitutional right to privacy. That was the logic used for the ruling: That the government cannot intrude on abortion because it violates a woman's rights to privacy. Now with the supreme court set to argue that there is no constitutional right to abortion this also follows that there is no constitutional right to privacy either. The argument is essentially that the constitution does not directly spell out a right to either, therefore the previous rulings are null and void. Anyone that cares even an iota about privacy should be very concerned about this.

ng12 4y ago
This is not true, the 4a never gave you unrestricted right to privacy. As a simple example: the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving. I am all for reasonable abortion access but Roe was a disastrously bad ruling in many ways.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  The right to privacy as it pertains to Roe v Wade and many other precedents primarily stems from the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process, not the 4th amendment's freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Correct, the 4th amendment doesn't give you an unrestricted right to privacy, but the court argued that such a right existed through other precedent and Roe v Wade. So by that argument: Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? Because if you want to argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy then that's the route you get to go down. Alito is arguing that if it's not directly in the constitution it does not exist. Frankly I'm not willing to accept any challenge to Roe v Wade because the people doing so aim to destroy abortion no matter how many other rights or precedent they have to trample over. If abortion is banned they will stop at nothing to destroy encryption and privacy in order to prosecute anyone that ever has an abortion, even across state lines.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Fight for a constitutional amendment ratifying an explicit right to privacy then. I agree that it would be good if we had that. But just because it would be good doesn't mean we can pretend it already is so.
  - ng12 4y ago
    > Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? I think it would be very likely that a law passed by the legislative branch banning encryption would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't think there's much room for debate here. Digital privacy and abortion are issues that must be handled in the legislative branch, not the judicial one.
- HidyBush 4y ago
  >the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving it doesn't? AFAIK you can refuse such a test, they really can't force it on you. of course if you do there will be consequences, but if you don't want the government to know your blood alcohol level you absolutely can. most probably you will be sentenced for driving under the influence, but that would be just a sentence and not actual provable data about you.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  As a matter of fact, the 4th absolutely protects you from having to take a breathalyzer when pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. You are not required to comply, and to compel you requires a warrant signed by a judge, as per the 4th. There can be no criminal sanction, but in many states, the state may revoke the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on state maintained roadways, or in other words, suspend a drivers license.
snickerbockers 4y ago
>The argument is essentially that the constitution does not directly spell out a right to either, therefore the previous rulings are null and void. That is a significant problem though. The court shouldn't just make stuff up that has no constitutional basis. Anyways, the government can already compel you to give them data against your consent, it's called a subpoena. There are even cases of people being held in jail for refusing to provide decryption keys.

ng12 4y ago

This is not true, the 4a never gave you unrestricted right to privacy. As a simple example: the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving. I am all for reasonable abortion access but Roe was a disastrously bad ruling in many ways.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
The right to privacy as it pertains to Roe v Wade and many other precedents primarily stems from the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process, not the 4th amendment's freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
fzeroracer 4y ago
Correct, the 4th amendment doesn't give you an unrestricted right to privacy, but the court argued that such a right existed through other precedent and Roe v Wade. So by that argument: Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? Because if you want to argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy then that's the route you get to go down. Alito is arguing that if it's not directly in the constitution it does not exist. Frankly I'm not willing to accept any challenge to Roe v Wade because the people doing so aim to destroy abortion no matter how many other rights or precedent they have to trample over. If abortion is banned they will stop at nothing to destroy encryption and privacy in order to prosecute anyone that ever has an abortion, even across state lines.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  Fight for a constitutional amendment ratifying an explicit right to privacy then. I agree that it would be good if we had that. But just because it would be good doesn't mean we can pretend it already is so.
- ng12 4y ago
  > Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? I think it would be very likely that a law passed by the legislative branch banning encryption would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't think there's much room for debate here. Digital privacy and abortion are issues that must be handled in the legislative branch, not the judicial one.
HidyBush 4y ago
>the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving it doesn't? AFAIK you can refuse such a test, they really can't force it on you. of course if you do there will be consequences, but if you don't want the government to know your blood alcohol level you absolutely can. most probably you will be sentenced for driving under the influence, but that would be just a sentence and not actual provable data about you.
betwixthewires 4y ago
As a matter of fact, the 4th absolutely protects you from having to take a breathalyzer when pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. You are not required to comply, and to compel you requires a warrant signed by a judge, as per the 4th. There can be no criminal sanction, but in many states, the state may revoke the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on state maintained roadways, or in other words, suspend a drivers license.

snickerbockers 4y ago

>The argument is essentially that the constitution does not directly spell out a right to either, therefore the previous rulings are null and void. That is a significant problem though. The court shouldn't just make stuff up that has no constitutional basis. Anyways, the government can already compel you to give them data against your consent, it's called a subpoena. There are even cases of people being held in jail for refusing to provide decryption keys.