4 ms·

How is it completely correct? The 9th amendment acknowledges that rights not enumerated in the constitution exist. It's perfectly reasonable to say that bodily

How is it completely correct? The 9th amendment acknowledges that rights not enumerated in the constitution exist. It's perfectly reasonable to say that bodily autonomy is in fact one of those rights, as the concept is required for other rights to even exist.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
The court decision goes over the process it uses to determine if something is an unenumerated right: "We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7)." There is a lengthy appendix to the ruling that goes through the list of prior state laws that criminalized abortion and shows that a right to abortion is not, in fact, "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition".
- sophacles 4y ago
  So you want to force women to die and easily preventable death (e.g. ectopic pregnancy)? That's the only way "completely correct" works here - the trigger laws on the books that result in that outcome were in place before the court took this case. They chose to rule broadly rather than a ruling that still enshrined the right of someone to have a medical procedure that would preserve their life say in the case of a non-viable pregnancy that would end in the death of both the woman and the fetus. edit: i was wrong about the trigger laws having exceptions for life endangering pregnancies - its the new laws the same people are passing that remove the exceptions. I still stand by my statement, because the "completely correct" ruling allows those exceptions to be removed.
- coffeefirst 4y ago
  The problem is of "deeply rooted in history and tradition" is a weasel phrase that means literally anything they want it to mean. Their claims about history and tradition so far have been historically inaccurate, or limited to only arch-conservative Christian traditions. None of this is to mention a deeper fundamental problem with only looking at history and tradition in such a literal way: for women or men who are not white straight Christians, they haven't actually had equal rights for all that long. Arguably, the right to marry is a pretty fundamental Natural Right and has only been recognized starting in 2004. These are master orators who no longer care about perceived legitimacy or stare decisis. They will continue to do whatever they want because they can, and make up the justification as they go along.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

The court decision goes over the process it uses to determine if something is an unenumerated right: "We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7)." There is a lengthy appendix to the ruling that goes through the list of prior state laws that criminalized abortion and shows that a right to abortion is not, in fact, "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition".

sophacles 4y ago
So you want to force women to die and easily preventable death (e.g. ectopic pregnancy)? That's the only way "completely correct" works here - the trigger laws on the books that result in that outcome were in place before the court took this case. They chose to rule broadly rather than a ruling that still enshrined the right of someone to have a medical procedure that would preserve their life say in the case of a non-viable pregnancy that would end in the death of both the woman and the fetus. edit: i was wrong about the trigger laws having exceptions for life endangering pregnancies - its the new laws the same people are passing that remove the exceptions. I still stand by my statement, because the "completely correct" ruling allows those exceptions to be removed.
coffeefirst 4y ago
The problem is of "deeply rooted in history and tradition" is a weasel phrase that means literally anything they want it to mean. Their claims about history and tradition so far have been historically inaccurate, or limited to only arch-conservative Christian traditions. None of this is to mention a deeper fundamental problem with only looking at history and tradition in such a literal way: for women or men who are not white straight Christians, they haven't actually had equal rights for all that long. Arguably, the right to marry is a pretty fundamental Natural Right and has only been recognized starting in 2004. These are master orators who no longer care about perceived legitimacy or stare decisis. They will continue to do whatever they want because they can, and make up the justification as they go along.