Conservative judges deny that a privacy right exists in the Constitution, despite the guarantees of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that enshrine the right to be secure in our persons and ensure the right of liberty, the reservation of UNSPECIFIED, UNENUMERATED rights in the Ninth Amendment, the long history of abortion rights in this country back to the time of the Founders and even earlier, and the application of federal rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments, and are poised to eradicate rights for women to control their own bodies (currently regarding forced pregnancy, with contraception on deck).
Yet these same judges who are champing at the bit to destroy women’s privacy rights so they can satisfy a need to provide a ““domestic supply of infants … available to be adopted” [translation: poor women who can’t afford to travel forced to become brood mares to provide babies for rich elite women who want to adopt], are whining that … boo hoo … the privacy of their deliberations about how to take away others’ privacy rights was violated.
Oh, and while I am no big fan of protesting at public figures residences, there is a delicious irony in the same judges whining about their privacy being violated by protesters whose privacy rights they are poised to decimate.
Conservative judges deny that a privacy right exists in the Constitution, despite the guarantees of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that enshrine the right to be secure in our persons and ensure the right of liberty, the reservation of UNSPECIFIED, UNENUMERATED rights in the Ninth Amendment, the long history of abortion rights in this country back to the time of the Founders and even earlier, and the application of federal rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments, and are poised to eradicate rights for women to control their own bodies (currently regarding forced pregnancy, with contraception on deck).
Yet these same judges who are champing at the bit to destroy women’s privacy rights so they can satisfy a need to provide a ““domestic supply of infants … available to be adopted” [translation: poor women who can’t afford to travel forced to become brood mares to provide babies for rich elite women who want to adopt], are whining that … boo hoo … the privacy of their deliberations about how to take away others’ privacy rights was violated.
Oh, and while I am no big fan of protesting at public figures residences, there is a delicious irony in the same judges whining about their privacy being violated by protesters whose privacy rights they are poised to decimate.