Griswold v. Connecticut

[gam197]

originally posted** by Wirraway**
given the near universal right to privacy as a matter of law in the United States, its more than a jingle.

There was no “right to privacy”. There were laws on the books in the 1960’s that addressed privacy such as search and seizure laws, wire tape which had to do with outside forces. Today that would include drug testing and more.

Privacy in sexual relations within a family can entail sex with a parent, pet, to marital relations. Where does one draw the line and if not for Christianity, is there even a line? Suppose I don’t agree with your value system, am I not entitled to my own “right to privacy” in my home.

It all gets messed up.

 

[Wirraway]

There was no “right to privacy”. There were laws on the books in the 1960’s that addressed privacy such as search and seizure laws, wire tape which had to do with outside forces. Today that would include drug testing and more.

Privacy in sexual relations within a family can entail sex with a parent, pet, to marital relations. Where does one draw the line and if not for Christianity, is there even a line? Suppose I don’t agree with your value system, am I not entitled to my own “right to privacy” in my home.

It all gets messed up.

I assume that you have forgotten that in a federal system such as our own, rights can originate independently in the federal government or the state governments.

California has a constitutional right to privacy.

Article 1, Section 1.

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and** privacy**.”

I could cite dozens of other state constititional or statutory laws stating a right to privacy, but the point is made.

you can’t argue with a black letter recitation of the law.

if you want to limit the extent of the privacy right as a foundation for abortion or sexual practices, you MUST understand how constititional law works. simply denying the existence of black letter law is pointless and a nonstarter and does nothing but hand the victory to the opposition.

the right to privacy protects you from a lot of bad things, including intrusions into or exploitation of your medical records, mental health records, financial records, juvenile arrest records, the list is very, very long, in the scope of the concept of privacy rights, abortion is a small part.

 

[rlg94086]

I assume that you have forgotten that in a federal system such as our own, rights can originate independently in the federal government or the state governments.

California has a constitutional right to privacy.

Article 1, Section 1.

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and** privacy**.”

I could cite dozens of other state constititional or statutory laws stating a right to privacy, but the point is made.

you can’t argue with a black letter recitation of the law.

if you want to limit the extent of the privacy right as a foundation for abortion or sexual practices, you MUST understand how constititional law works. simply denying the existence of black letter law is pointless and a nonstarter and does nothing but hand the victory to the opposition.

the right to privacy protects you from a lot of bad things, including intrusions into or exploitation of your medical records, mental health records, financial records, juvenile arrest records, the list is very, very long, in the scope of the concept of privacy rights, abortion is a small part.

Yes, but these “right to privacy” laws don’t mean that something can’t be illegal. For example, there are illegal drugs. If someone is using/selling illegal drugs from their home, is it a private matter? Nope. The police can get a warrant and arrest that person. Also, there are medical procedures that are illegal, regardless of a person’s supposed “right to privacy.”

Contraception and abortion could still be made illegal, regardless of a “right to privacy.” The drugs, devices and medical procedures could all be made illegal. That would mean that the doctors, stores and pharmacies would not be able to sell said items or perform abortion procedures.

 

[Wirraway]

Yes, but these “right to privacy” laws don’t mean that something can’t be illegal. For example, there are illegal drugs. If someone is using/selling illegal drugs from their home, is it a private matter? Nope. The police can get a warrant and arrest that person. Also, there are medical procedures that are illegal, regardless of a person’s supposed “right to privacy.”

constitutional rights are not, of course, absolute. that is why you need a warrant (or a court order) to invade privacy rights, just as you need a warrant to demonstrate probable cause to overcome the fourth amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. obviously, the fact that conduct falls under the shield of privacy or related rights doesn’t mean that the the shield is absolute and that government can’t invade it, although that’s what often happens the right to privacy just as the fourth amendment can, in fact, protect criminal activity against government intrusions if the government can’t make a proper showing of probably cause or the intrusion is too extreme. (the government could “round up the usual suspects” and beat confessions out of everyone who isn’t warrantlessly wiretapped, and pay your children to spy on you, but we really don’t want that kind of society, right?).

that’s life under the constitution(s). the cost of allowing the government free rein to root out crime and sin without any limits is way too high a price to pay for this society.

Contraception and abortion could still be made illegal, regardless of a “right to privacy.” The drugs, devices and medical procedures could all be made illegal. That would mean that the doctors, stores and pharmacies would not be able to sell said items or perform abortion procedures.

sure, they could. but won’t accomplish that by arguing that the right to privacy doesn’t exist. you have to convincingly argue that the right to privacy doesn’t extend to contraception and abortion. good luck with prosecuting the private use of contraceptives by married couples in their own homes, though, that would be a complete PR disaster.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Wirraway**
California has a constitutional right to privacy.

Article 1, Section 1.

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

The “right to privacy” was added to the California Constitution in 1972.

California allowed legal abortions in 1969.

I would venture to say that these changes came near or after Roe and there are probably only a few that actually changed their constitution to include 'right to privacy".

Even the California courts struggle to define it…

privsecblog.com/archives/state-legislation-californias-constitutional-right-to-privacy-is-limited-by-statutory-litigation-privilege.html

 

[rlg94086]

sure, they could. but won’t accomplish that by arguing that the right to privacy doesn’t exist. you have to convincingly argue that the right to privacy doesn’t extend to contraception and abortion. good luck with prosecuting the private use of contraceptives by married couples in their own homes, though, that would be a complete PR disaster.

Hello? What I said is that the “right to privacy” has no bearing on the legality of abortion and contraception. It doesn’t mean I don’t believe we have NO right to privacy (i.e. search and seizure laws).

We don’t need to “prosecute the private use of contraceptives by married couples in their own homes.” It would be handled just like marijuana use is handled in most states. If the devices and drugs are illegal, they won’t be available at your local grocery store or pharmacist. You would prosecute anyone who sells those illegal items. Now, if the couple is a contraceptive “dealer,” then you could get a warrant to search their home and arrest them.

Anyway, the point of this thread has nothing to do with state laws. It has to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut should have been allowed to regulate contraceptions any way they want according to their own constitution and laws.