5 ms·

Thankfully the founders had some thoughts on "inventing rights". "Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed

Thankfully the founders had some thoughts on "inventing rights". "Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Bodily autonomy is more complex than just womb to birth. So, at what age is a mother no longer required to use their body to provide life for a child? ie. If a 4 year old needs a blood transfusion, can the state force the mother to provide their blood for their child? What about a kidney transplant? When does the states interest in the potential life of a child end? Bodily autonomy aside, since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy, and was part of the foundations of many other precedents and laws, is HIPA still valid? What is the new line between medical privacy rights and free speech rights. .

jaywalk 4y ago
> since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy And it got thrown out for precisely this reason. Although cocaine can be prescribed in very limited circumstances, my doctor cannot just write me a prescription for cocaine. That's a "medical privacy" issue too, right? > is HIPA still valid? Don't be absurd.
- sarlalian 4y ago
  The privacy portions of HIPA were a balanced between a persons right to privacy vs a persons rights to free speech. Much of the foundations of a right to medical privacy is based on Rowe V. Wade. Without a right to medical privacy, HIPA could be an unconstitutional constraint on medical personnel's rights to free speech. I'm not being absurd, the second order consequences of this ruling are going to be vast.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    First of all, it's HIPAA. Second, I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of how all of this works. HIPAA is not in any danger whatsoever, and really has nothing to do with Roe.
ameister14 4y ago
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You realize that this goes against the right of the federal government to regulate the states re abortion?
- sarlalian 4y ago
  It's complicated. States can't just limit a persons rights because they aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The federal government does have an expressed interest in making sure states don't legislate away peoples rights, whether they are explicitly enumerated or not.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    >States can't just limit a persons rights because they aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution Historically, yes, they can. The BoR didn't initially restrict state action, only federal action.

jaywalk 4y ago

> since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy And it got thrown out for precisely this reason. Although cocaine can be prescribed in very limited circumstances, my doctor cannot just write me a prescription for cocaine. That's a "medical privacy" issue too, right? > is HIPA still valid? Don't be absurd.

sarlalian 4y ago
The privacy portions of HIPA were a balanced between a persons right to privacy vs a persons rights to free speech. Much of the foundations of a right to medical privacy is based on Rowe V. Wade. Without a right to medical privacy, HIPA could be an unconstitutional constraint on medical personnel's rights to free speech. I'm not being absurd, the second order consequences of this ruling are going to be vast.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  First of all, it's HIPAA. Second, I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of how all of this works. HIPAA is not in any danger whatsoever, and really has nothing to do with Roe.

ameister14 4y ago

>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You realize that this goes against the right of the federal government to regulate the states re abortion?

sarlalian 4y ago
It's complicated. States can't just limit a persons rights because they aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The federal government does have an expressed interest in making sure states don't legislate away peoples rights, whether they are explicitly enumerated or not.
- ameister14 4y ago
  >States can't just limit a persons rights because they aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution Historically, yes, they can. The BoR didn't initially restrict state action, only federal action.