The Evisceration of Roe: The Elimination of the Right to Privacy

Tweet

Media outlets term the evisceration of personal rights as “culture wars.” The term is a misnomer. When a small number of people grab power and then begin removing individual rights, it is an assault on an individual's privacy. For those who are "pro-life", such an assault may be acceptable. The price to pay may be minimal in their eyes. But make no mistake, the legal reasoning used by Alito in the leaked opinion draft should scare everyone. Alito hangs his opinion on the view that since the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the right, the right is not "deeply rooted" in the nation's history and traditions, that there is no such protected right to privacy. Under this logic, other rights will likely fall. Roe was based on Griswald which protected the right to contraception as a privacy right. Imagine a world where your daughters and granddaughters can neither get an abortion or the contraception needed to prevent an abortion. Such, the religious right is not gunning for it--yet. But they will. The right to marry whom you choose--regardless of skin color, race, or creed. The right to same-sex marriage. The right not to be sterilized if you are mentally ill. The right to have sex with a consenting partner of your choice, in the manner you two choose to do so. All of these are based, in whole or part, on the right to privacy. A Supreme Court decision that would criminalize abortion, eviscerating the ambit of privacy and personal autonomy afforded by the 14th Amendment, would expand governmental power into every nook and cranny of life — from a doctor’s office in Texas treating a transgender child, to intimate relations in a bedroom in Georgia, to a pharmacy counter in Ohio. Will government dictate a set of views that have not had majority support for decades? For many anti-abortionists, religiosity lies at the heart of their belief. The right-wing justices and their supporters appear ready to reject one of the Founders’ core principles: that religion shall not be imposed by government edict. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has stated: “The nuclear family is crucial to civilization, it is God’s design for humanity, and it must be protected and celebrated." Allowing the religious right to impose their religious beliefs on others is in direct contravention with the fundamental core of the Constitution which separates church and state for a reason--. for this reason, among others. This is about appropriating state power to enforce theocratically driven positions. The question boils down to whether the government will diminish individual rights (e.g., a rape victim’s access to abortion) and supplant decision-making on matters, such as health care, that individuals and families jealously guard. It wasn’t so long ago that “conservatives” stood for the proposition that government, especially the federal government, should not control the totality of traditions, habits and other decisions made in civil society. When the right to privacy is attacked, we may face a future where the government can interfere with their personal decisions. Not just women. Anyone. And while I am sure that sooner or later we will get to the bottom of why 55 men drafting a document failed to mention a right to abortion, in the meantime, four men and 1 woman will affect the lives of millions of women in this country. Roe is the tip of the iceberg. Then contraception Then sex Then marriage Then sterilization Without agency over our own bodies, there is no equal protection for women under the law. None. Women will die. We refuse to go back to the back alley abortions of the past. We refuse to allow lawmakers to take away our agency. We will not go back Not now. Not ever.