It would seem to any reasonable person watching the drama unfold
in the 2012 Presidential race that efforts in our Nation would involve
economics, trade and green, sustainable energy initiatives but instead, the
focus has been on abortion and contraceptives. Acting as if the negation of our
right to privacy will fix all of
In listening to the rhetoric of late against these freedoms, one
would be led to believe this issue had never been decided upon in the past. As
would seem typical of late in
On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a "right to privacy" can be found within the U.S. Constitution which includes the use of contraception by married couples. This decision paved the way for Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, which extended the right to single people. Since the Griswold decision, many rights to choice have emanated from these privacy decisions, including the right to abortion including Roe vs. Wade in 1973. More recently, in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas , the Supreme Court relied upon it to extend privacy rights to gay and lesbians within their homes.
In their continued resistance of decisions by the Supreme Court and push for autonomy, many States have begun to deny their obligation to protect citizen's rights to privacy and by proxy, choice by enacting tougher, anti-abortion laws. Although many States do not directly negate the Court's decision, they have engineered tactics to make the procedure unconscionable or demeaning for the women involved and redefining abortion to involve even contraceptive products.
The recent decision by the Virginia's House of Delegates and
Senate would require a woman to view an ultrasound of the fetus 24 hours before
the procedure and demands that the physician performing it to show the results
to the patient. Similarly in
As Dahlia Lithwick states , "The whole point of the new abortion bans is to force the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. It's unconstitutional to place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, although it's anyone's guess what, precisely, that means. One would be inclined to suspect, however, that unwanted penetration with a medical device violates either the undue burden test or the right to bodily autonomy. But that's the other catch in this bill. Proponents seem to be of the view that once a woman has allowed a man to penetrate her body once, her right to bodily autonomy has ended."
These laws are not only intrusive, they add to the war against women and their rights in this nation by some in the radical political fringes. If any evidence need be viewed to back up this claim, all one has to do is look at the recent Congressional review board on the issue of contraception and the Healthcare Reform Act on Capitol Hill, recently. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel chaired by a male and consisted of eight men who felt personally persecuted by the requirement. Not a single woman was allowed to participate .