« This again? | Main | Washington Post: Pandering pill needed »
August 3, 2005
Our “so-called" right to privacy
It just gets worse and worse.
The Washington Post reports today on recently released documents that leave little question to how Roberts feels about the right to privacy. And it ain’t good.
...A second memo, sent by Roberts to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then- Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, "devotes a section to the so-called 'right to privacy,' arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade."
So-called? That’s just fantastic. This comment makes it all the more clear where Roberts stands--right alongside anti-choice activists that oppose the right to privacy and want to do away not only with abortion rights, but with birth control rights as well.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said: “The more we learn about John Roberts’ judicial philosophy, the clearer it becomes that he is not the right choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” No joke. This guy is terrifying.
Posted by Jessica at August 3, 2005 2:25 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2726
Comments
Sounds a lot like when some refer to the "so called" partial birth abortion...
By the way, where is the right to privacy found in the Constitution, again?
Posted by: heytrapp at August 5, 2005 1:23 PM
"And some like Joan Rivers go on to say there is no such thing as partial birth abortion."
Here in the UK, there is no such thing: there are *very late abortions*, which are very rare indeed. Our doctors, many of whom have penises, have voted strongly against any restrictions such as a new time limit (not that they make the law). One argument here is that easy access to safe and legal (and free on the NHS) abortion early, cuts down on late abortions. (I know it's a very obvious argument, but I thought you might need to hear it, though if you are a fundamentalist right-to-lifer (of fetuses) then you may not.
It is my understanding that according to Roe, states can restrict third trimester abortions but must allow abortion if the life or health of the woman is threatened. The provisos here are similar.
(If you oppose abortion why mention "partial birth abortion"?)
Re the relation of penises to rational discourse on abortion: I suggest this is culture specific, as here, there is no problem. But I do think it worthy of note that in the US, a very crucial SCOTUS vote for abortion was cast by the only justice who had given birth. And here, Margaret Thatcher voted for choice.)
Posted by: Jayanne at August 6, 2005 9:07 PM
Jayanne,
Do you have any insight on why abortions are increasing in number in the UK? Here in the states, the number is decreasing.
Posted by: exdem at August 8, 2005 3:27 PM