The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[BUDDY]

"Origional intention" is seldom used today not because the courts have been "liberal", but because there is a tremendous body of precedent.

Overthowing a right to privacy will mean the state can enter your bedroom and arrest you for oral sex. It will limit or eliminate a right of association. It will eliminate a distinction between public nudity and nudity in your own home. Contraception will now be illegal. Each one of the precedents that supported reproductive rights will be overthrown. It will usher in a police state.

But I'm not worried about it going back to the states. For if it does, it brings into play the protection of equaily for US citizens in the 14th Amendment. A woman in one state may not be denied what is legal in another state or vice versa. The 9th Amendment must also be nulified for it too was a basis, along with the penumbra, of Roe v Wade.

Your idea is untenable and quite foolish.

The liberal ideology in regards to the constitution and the supreme court, refers to the overall feeling that the constitution can be ever changing. I do not believe that the intent for the founders was for the constitution to be altered or changed by the hogh court, but by the passing of legislation. At least, that is how it clearly reads. And yet the right to privacy, which is found no where in the constitution, and to which there is no particular legislation, is treated as a part of the bill of rights because of one supreme court decision. Wouldn't you feel beer if this important idea was in place due to legislation, insead of being there because of the viewpoint of judges who can be replaced?

As far as what I think will happen, it has little to do with my personal beliefs, and more to do with how I think things will happen given the current situation, the makeup of the court, and the recent shift of the nation to the right. Whether it is a good or bad thing remains to be seen, but I do not think that it will result in the 1984 type society that you illistrate in your post. Afterall, it is not as if those things happened prior to Griswold v. Conn.

As far as your last line goes...well, that was just mean spirited.

 

[Smoke]

"Originalist" judges are usually conservative and try to interpret law based upon the original intention of the constitutional writters.

All the more reason to avoid originalist judges. The framers intended to abolish the African slave trade, eventually. They didn't intend to abolish slavery. They didn't intend to allow black men, much less women, to vote. They didn't intend for senators to be popularly elected. From time to time we've found it necessary to amend the Constitution because the intentions of the framers were no longer consider appropriate, moral, or workable. (Nevertheless, thanks to the religious right, the U.S. rejected an amendment that would have made women equal under the law to men.)

Nothing would be more ludicrous than to chain the nation to the intentions (real or imagined) of the framers.

So do we need an amendment to establish the right to privacy? I don't think so.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and it will be overturned, it will not outlaw abortion, but will simply state that the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution, which will throw the question back onto state legislatures to decide whether to allow or not allow abortion in their particular state, or to put certain restrictions upon it.

The right to privacy is clearly Constitutional. Without it, there can be no liberty at all. The right to privacy may be implied in the 9th and 14th Amendments. It's definitely implied in the 4th Amendment. Without it the 4th Amendment makes no sense at all.

 

[kevmicsmi]

"Origional intention" is seldom used today not because the courts have been "liberal", but because there is a tremendous body of precedent.

Overthowing a right to privacy will mean the state can enter your bedroom and arrest you for oral sex. It will limit or eliminate a right of association. It will eliminate a distinction between public nudity and nudity in your own home. Contraception will now be illegal. Each one of the precedents that supported reproductive rights will be overthrown. It will usher in a police state.

.

ummmm ok? That is what I am talking about! I dont care if justices think there should be a right to privacy, it does not exist! Just because you think a police state would be ushered in which is laughable on its face, doesnt mean justices have the right to ....ahem.....LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! I hope AE doesnt read this

But I'm not worried about it going back to the states. For if it does, it brings into play the protection of equaily for US citizens in the 14th Amendment. A woman in one state may not be denied what is legal in another state or vice versa.

you completely misunderstand the law Pah. There is no right to an abortion. Your 14th amendment argument doesnt hold up! just because in nevada a woman has a right to whore herself, doesnt mean its a constitutional federally protected right. Why would abortion be any different?

The 9th Amendment must also be nulified for it too was a basis, along with the penumbra, of Roe v Wade.

How does the ninth amendment give a right to abortion? It could just as easily be argued that one of the rights retained by the people was a fathers right to force birth.

Your idea is untenable and quite foolish

Why, because you said so?

 

[dawny0826]

Rape already ends lives.

People who have just been raped do not think rationally.


I was molested and raped when I was much younger. I didn't know what to do but to internalise it. And because it was done to me by family members (who are no longer a part of my life for other reason) I know the complete and utter drama it would create.

Other people don't because they are too scared, just want it to go away, just want to forget it. To report it- it means possibly being blamed for your own rape, ignored, mocked by authourities, forced to go to court over it and tell complete strangers what happened and relive it just so the rapist can get a slap on the wrist.
(Which is why I am so against this Blame the Victim mentality that seems to be oh so popular anymore. I don't care if the woman was butt-naked and drunk out of her mind and alone in some back alley, IT DOESN'T GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO RAPE HER.)

Most rapes are commited by people the victim KNOWS. That makes the situation even more difficult.



When you've just been through a violating tramautic experience- you don't think properly or logically or rationally.

This is another reason I want the Morning After Pill OTC. To go to a doctor means questions- something a lot of rape victims just aren't prepared to go through or want to go through.


It isn't a black and white issue. :/ There are so many things that factor into this.

We just view this issue completely differently. I think that life and death IS a pretty black and white issue. When it comes to making a decision on abortion...you're dealing with life and death...no in betweens.

I agree to a great extent that rape does end lives. As does abortion.

Bottom line...most of the women aborting their babies...simply do not want their babies and are unwed and half of these women have already had prior abortions. I'm sorry...I see a lot of irresponsibility here.

Obviously, you're pro-choice...regardless and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

And I agree with you 100%, no woman deserves rape...regardless of the circumstances. No one deserves rape...period.

I am kind of curious, though. You've mentioned that you would like for the morning after pill to be available OTC.

What are your thoughts on other forms of oral contraceptives? Do you feel that these should be placed OTC as well?

 

[kevmicsmi]

All the more reason to avoid originalist judges. The framers intended to abolish the African slave trade, eventually. They didn't intend to abolish slavery. They didn't intend to allow black men, much less women, to vote. They didn't intend for senators to be popularly elected. From time to time we've found it necessary to amend the Constitution because the intentions of the framers were no longer consider appropriate, moral, or workable. (Nevertheless, thanks to the religious right, the U.S. rejected an amendment that would have made women equal under the law to men.)

.

I dont even need to reply, you contradict yourelf so well....I will anyway though From time to time we have found the need to AMMEND the constitution.

Nothing would be more ludicrous than to chain the nation to the intentions (real or imagined) of the framers.

Maybe thats why the constitution is amendable

So do we need an amendment to establish the right to privacy? I don't think so.

im assuming because you know it would go down in flames

The right to privacy is clearly Constitutional. Without it, there can be no liberty at all. The right to privacy may be implied in the 9th and 14th Amendments. It's definitely implied in the 4th Amendment. Without it the 4th Amendment makes no sense at all.

A SPECIFIC type of privacy. This is not an all encompassing amendment. sorry argument doesnt stick. With that logic, the second amendment should give me the right to carry a rocket launcher as a private citizen

 

[kevmicsmi]

We just view this issue completely differently. I think that life and death IS a pretty black and white issue. When it comes to making a decision on abortion...you're dealing with life and death...no in betweens.

I agree to a great extent that rape does end lives. As does abortion.

Bottom line...most of the women aborting their babies...simply do not want their babies and are unwed and half of these women have already had prior abortions. I'm sorry...I see a lot of irresponsibility here.

Obviously, you're pro-choice...regardless and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

And I agree with you 100%, no woman deserves rape...regardless of the circumstances. No one deserves rape...period.

I am kind of curious, though. You've mentioned that you would like for the morning after pill to be available OTC.

What are your thoughts on other forms of oral contraceptives? Do you feel that these should be placed OTC as well?

Dawny, would you be happy if a state put in an exception for rape victims? Or do you feel it is all or nothing? I know if my wife was raped, even if illegal, I would not expect her to carry to term, I would support her decision to abort. Curious what you think?

 

[JillianMarie77]

I'd post you what I posted on my blog about this but it probably wouldn't fly.

Basically the legislation includes:
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO SEX EDUCATION
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STD/STI TREATMENT

it also ONLY allows for abortion if the mothers LIFE is in danger. Not her health - her LIFE.

So if she's got 3 kids and some lupus and the pregnancy could bring her out of remission TOO BAD! Make ready the wheel chair accessible bathroom and ramps for the porch and too bad the husband and all FOUR children now have to have an invalid mother. The government said so!

Now see? Birth control and sex ed are from the Devil! But the government forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy agianst her will and against sound medical advice? Thats from God!

Another point - a rather important one that I haven't been able to get a conservative christian to answer on my other board is this:

If life is life is life and in a case where the mothers life is in danger why is it then okay to terminate the baby? I mean any way you call it a life will be lost. YOu are placing a value judgment on two lives no matter which way.

Makes no sense to me

 

[kevmicsmi]

I'd post you what I posted on my blog about this but it probably wouldn't fly.

Basically the legislation includes:
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO SEX EDUCATION
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STD/STI TREATMENT

it also ONLY allows for abortion if the mothers LIFE is in danger. Not her health - her LIFE.

So if she's got 3 kids and some lupus and the pregnancy could bring her out of remission TOO BAD! Make ready the wheel chair accessible bathroom and ramps for the porch and too bad the husband and all FOUR children now have to have an invalid mother. The government said so!

Now see? Birth control and sex ed are from the Devil! But the government forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy agianst her will and against sound medical advice? Thats from God!

So if this lady has 3 kids and lupus, why doesnt her husband get fixed? why doesnt she? The great thing about America is you are free to move to a different state if you dont like the one you are in.

Another point - a rather important one that I haven't been able to get a conservative christian to answer on my other board is this:

If life is life is life and in a case where the mothers life is in danger why is it then okay to terminate the baby? I mean any way you call it a life will be lost. YOu are placing a value judgment on two lives no matter which way.

It is the family's call in this instance if it is okay for them. We do not live in a Theocracy You are not lawfully obligated under the law so sacrifice your life for anothers. If you can not swim, you will not be prosecuted for not jumping in to save a drowning person. If you could push someone out of the way of a train, but you would surely die doing it, you are not obligated to save them at your peril. This also is a value judgement on life

Makes no sense to me

OK!

 

[dawny0826]

I'd post you what I posted on my blog about this but it probably wouldn't fly.

Basically the legislation includes:
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO SEX EDUCATION
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STD/STI TREATMENT

it also ONLY allows for abortion if the mothers LIFE is in danger. Not her health - her LIFE.

So if she's got 3 kids and some lupus and the pregnancy could bring her out of remission TOO BAD! Make ready the wheel chair accessible bathroom and ramps for the porch and too bad the husband and all FOUR children now have to have an invalid mother. The government said so!

Now see? Birth control and sex ed are from the Devil! But the government forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy agianst her will and against sound medical advice? Thats from God!

Another point - a rather important one that I haven't been able to get a conservative christian to answer on my other board is this:

If life is life is life and in a case where the mothers life is in danger why is it then okay to terminate the baby? I mean any way you call it a life will be lost. YOu are placing a value judgment on two lives no matter which way.

Makes no sense to me

Look at statistics. The most common ailment during early pregnancy that REQUIRES an ABORTION is an actopic pregnancy which normally is noticed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. The pregnancy isn't viable and the mother risks losing a fallopian tube or hemoraghing.

I have yet to find another complication during the first trimester that places a mother's life in danger and demands the termination of a pregnancy. Please fill me in if you are aware of others. Hyperemesis can even be controlled if a woman seeks proper medical attention.

By around 26 weeks of pregnancy...if there is an ailment that jeopardizes the life of mom or baby...DELIVERY is INDUCED...ask an OBGYN...abortion isn't suggested.

Most first trimester abortions are conducted because Mom doesn't want the baby...most of these mothers are unwed and are not ready to have children and are either not using protection at all or are doing so half ***. Almost HALF of these women have had one or more abortions.

The therapeutic abortion makes up a very small percentage of overall abortons within the US.

Abortions due to rape and incest make up a very small percentage of overall abortions within the US.

I don't agree that sex education and birth control resources and information should be limited. I think they're imperative.

As far as a mother's health being endangered by a pregnancy. News flash! EVERY single pregnancy carries risks to both Mom and/or baby. Every single one. There are so many complications that can occur. And 1 in 4 women will miscarry.

Common sense. That's what it all boils down to with me. And responsibility.

Sex can result in pregnancy. If you don't want a baby...use as adequate enough protection to prevent a pregnancy as possible. If you're physically, mentally, emotionally and/or financially unstable...don't place yourself in situations where pregnancy can result.

The government doesn't have to provide a woman with resources for her to become educated about her body.

I just fail to see why it's so difficult for women to make resonsible choices.

I think it's just far to easy to take the easy way out and blame others (and the government) for mistakes made.

 

[Smoke]

im assuming because you know it would go down in flames

I think the right to privacy is both self-evident and encompassed by the 4th Amendment. Of course, it could go down in flames in the current political climate; that's exactly what the religious right is fighting for, isn't it?

A SPECIFIC type of privacy. This is not an all encompassing amendment. sorry argument doesnt stick. With that logic, the second amendment should give me the right to carry a rocket launcher as a private citizen

It might surprise you, but this liberal/progressive pacifist isn't all that troubled by the idea of your owning a functional rocket launcher. For these reasons:

1) In a world where everybody had rocket launchers, smart people would never use them, and stupid people would only use them once. I imagine the stupid people would do less harm than governments, criminals, and terrorists do now.

2) Pacifism must be freely chosen, or it's not really pacifism. When people are forced to be pacifists, that's tyrrany and oppression.

3) People have a right to self-defense. Those who embrace non-violence voluntarily lay down that right, but it's a serious decision and no one can impose that decision on someone else.

4) The most likely sources of serious threats to your life and liberty are government (military and police, your own government's or someone else's), terrorism, and marauding bands of stupid people. (Sorry if that seems redundant.) If you do choose to defend yourself against soldiers, police, terrorists, and mobs, you can't very well be expected to do it with a .22 revolver.

But if you're not going to have effective arms, you might as well join up with us pacifists. If you're going to get slaughtered anyway, you might as well see it coming.

By the way, the United States is founded on the violent overthrow of established authority. Now that's originalism!

 

[kevmicsmi]

I think the right to privacy is both self-evident and encompassed by the 4th Amendment. Of course, it could go down in flames in the current political climate; that's exactly what the religious right is fighting for, isn't it?


It might surprise you, but this liberal/progressive pacifist isn't all that troubled by the idea of your owning a functional rocket launcher. For these reasons:

1) In a world where everybody had rocket launchers, smart people would never use them, and stupid people would only use them once. I imagine the stupid people would do less harm than governments, criminals, and terrorists do now.

2) Pacifism must be freely chosen, or it's not really pacifism. When people are forced to be pacifists, that's tyrrany and oppression.

3) People have a right to self-defense. Those who embrace non-violence voluntarily lay down that right, but it's a serious decision and no one can impose that decision on someone else.

4) The most likely sources of serious threats to your life and liberty are government (military and police, your own government's or someone else's), terrorism, and marauding bands of stupid people. (Sorry if that seems redundant.) If you do choose to defend yourself against soldiers, police, terrorists, and mobs, you can't very well be expected to do it with a .22 revolver.

But if you're not going to have effective arms, you might as well join up with us pacifists. If you're going to get slaughtered anyway, you might as well see it coming.

By the way, the United States is founded on the violent overthrow of established authority. Now that's originalism!

Gosh I wish we were in an election against each other.

"Midnight Blue is for ordinary Americans
getting blown up with rocket launchers!"

Seriously, frubals for a consistent position! i respect that!

 

[dawny0826]

Dawny, would you be happy if a state put in an exception for rape victims? Or do you feel it is all or nothing? I know if my wife was raped, even if illegal, I would not expect her to carry to term, I would support her decision to abort. Curious what you think?

I'm really trying to accept things differently...

But as of now...I feel that when comparing abortion to rape...abortion is the greater evil. If I was raped...and the morning after pill was not effective...I would carry to term. I doubt I'd consider adoption because I would want my child. I would consider adoption before I would consider abortion.

I know my views are pretty unpopular.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I'm really trying to accept things differently...

But as of now...I feel that when comparing abortion to rape...abortion is the greater evil. If I was raped...and the morning after pill was not effective...I would carry to term. I doubt I'd consider adoption because I would want my child. I would consider adoption before I would consider abortion.

That is one choice I hope to God my wife never has to face, there really isnt a good option

 

[dawny0826]

That is one choice I hope to God my wife never has to face, there really isnt a good option

I know. It's a horrible situation. I don't discount that.

Truly though...I'm one to practice what I preach.

If I was raped...I really would demand the morning after pill and if it didn't work...I would carry my child (God willing). The odds would be in my favor that it WOULD work...if I sought it as quickly as possible.

I sincerely hope that your wife never has to face that as well. To everyone...I hope no one has to go through that and for those who have...truly, my heart goes out to you.

 

[Pah]

The liberal ideology in regards to the constitution and the supreme court, refers to the overall feeling that the constitution can be ever changing. I do not believe that the intent for the founders was for the constitution to be altered or changed by the hogh court, but by the passing of legislation. At least, that is how it clearly reads. And yet the right to privacy, which is found no where in the constitution, and to which there is no particular legislation, is treated as a part of the bill of rights because of one supreme court decision. Wouldn't you feel beer if this important idea was in place due to legislation, insead of being there because of the viewpoint of judges who can be replaced?

There are so many errors here I don't know where to begin. The Constitution must change otherwise we would still have 3/4 persons. We would not be able to take our place in International Law. We would have lunch counters forever segregated.

Legislation can not change the Constitution - that is an impossibility. Legistlation must bow to constitutional rulings. But the rulings never create new law; they only negate bad law. It must be corrected by the same branch that gave you the bad law in the first place.

Read the 9th Amendment and tell me that does not cover those rights that, although not enumerated, are innate. Our government was not given the power to intrude into affairs covered by basic human rights. Did you in forming your opinion discover that principle - what is not enumerated as a government power or essential to exercising a government responsibility is retained by the people. There is privacy in the ballot box, there is privacy in association, there is privacy in sex and reproduction, there is privacy in seeking redress. Privacy is a fundemental right and you should learn what that means constitutionally.

As far as what I think will happen, it has little to do with my personal beliefs, and more to do with how I think things will happen given the current situation, the makeup of the court, and the recent shift of the nation to the right. Whether it is a good or bad thing remains to be seen, but I do not think that it will result in the 1984 type society that you illistrate in your post. Afterall, it is not as if those things happened prior to Griswold v. Conn.

Psst! - the penumbra was taken from cases that affirmed those rights in the Bill of Rights. The right to not testify against oneself was specifically mentioned as a right of privacy. You have to read and understand what precednets were used.

As far as your last line goes...well, that was just mean spirited.

Identication of a half-baked idea is mean spirited?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

ummmm ok? That is what I am talking about! I dont care if justices think there should be a right to privacy, it does not exist! Just because you think a police state would be ushered in which is laughable on its face, doesnt mean justices have the right to ....ahem.....LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! I hope AE doesnt read this

:banghead3

EDIT: BTW, the argument that "the right to priavacy is not in the constitution, so it doesn't exist" is the worst one that I have ever heard.

you completely misunderstand the law Pah. There is no right to an abortion. Your 14th amendment argument doesnt hold up! just because in nevada a woman has a right to whore herself, doesnt mean its a constitutional federally protected right. Why would abortion be any different?

Blasphemy! Blasphemy!

 

[PureX]

I know. It's a horrible situation. I don't discount that.

Truly though...I'm one to practice what I preach.

If I was raped...I really would demand the morning after pill and if it didn't work...I would carry my child (God willing). The odds would be in my favor that it WOULD work...if I sought it as quickly as possible.

I sincerely hope that your wife never has to face that as well. To everyone...I hope no one has to go through that and for those who have...truly, my heart goes out to you.

I respect your opinion, and everyone else's here, too. But this isn't really what the abortion issue is about. What it's about is the government dictating to you, and to "kevmicmi's" wife what MUST happen within your/her own body in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy.

Should your fellow citizens have the right to dictate to you what must happen inside your own body, and force you to follow their dictates by law, simply because their opinion is in the popular majority? No, they should not.

This is what the abortion issue is REALLY all about. And this is why in the United States, the right to an abortion is NOT a right that the federal OR state governments get to decide on by popular opinion. The United States is a LIMITED democracy. That means that the will of the majority is LIMITED by the rights of the individual. The majority opinion rules only up until that point where it infringes upon the unalienable rights of the individual. And so far the courts have decided that what happens inside your own body (or your wife's body) is an unalienable right of the individual to decide - and is NOT up to the popular opinions and will of the majority.

The abortion issue is not about what you or I want to see happen with unwanted pregnancies. It's about women having the unalienable right to decide for themselves what will happen INSIDE THEIR OWN BODIES.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...The United States is a LIMITED democracy...

Sorry, but this is not correct. America is a Constitutional Republic, and as such, we are ruled ultimately by law, not the "tyranny of the majority". If we accept that America is any kind of a democracy, then we must accept that whatever the majority wants IS correct. I for one, do not.

...Read the 9th Amendment and tell me that does not cover those rights that, although not enumerated, are innate. Our government was not given the power to intrude into affairs covered by basic human rights. Did you in forming your opinion discover that principle - what is not enumerated as a government power or essential to exercising a government responsibility is retained by the people...

There are lots of good points on this thread, but I thought I'd highlight this one. Even though I am not what you'd call an abortion supporter, I would oppose the South Dakota law on this basis.​

 

[Ceridwen018]

ummmm ok? That is what I am talking about! I dont care if justices think there should be a right to privacy, it does not exist! Just because you think a police state would be ushered in which is laughable on its face, doesnt mean justices have the right to ....ahem.....LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! I hope AE doesnt read this

In Griswald v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that a "right to privacy" was implied in the Constitution. Believe me, none of us want to do away with our right to privacy. Would you find it acceptable if the government was able to read your emails, track your movements useing your cell phone or car, or track what sorts of purchases you're making using your credit card? The government has the capabilities to do all of those things, but due to your personal right to privacy, it is illegal for them to act upon any of those capabilities without a warrant, probable cause, etc.

As for the Supreme Court, they are one of the most valuable branches of our government, and they most caertainly can "legislate from the bench." (That is essentially their job, by the by). The judicial branch of government is the only branch that Americans can trust to be treuly objective in its rulings. Congressmen and Presidents are swayed by voters and interest groups, but Supreme Court justices are not accountable to anyone. That leaves them free to truely protect our Constitutional rights by making decisions that are sometimes unpopular. "Popular Opinion" does not rule the United States--the Constitution does, and its a good thing too.

 

[kevmicsmi]

In Griswald v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that a "right to privacy" was implied in the Constitution. Believe me, none of us want to do away with our right to privacy. Would you find it acceptable if the government was able to read your emails, track your movements useing your cell phone or car, or track what sorts of purchases you're making using your credit card? The government has the capabilities to do all of those things, but due to your personal right to privacy, it is illegal for them to act upon any of those capabilities without a warrant, probable cause, etc.

As for the Supreme Court, they are one of the most valuable branches of our government, and they most caertainly can "legislate from the bench." (That is essentially their job, by the by). The judicial branch of government is the only branch that Americans can trust to be treuly objective in its rulings. Congressmen and Presidents are swayed by voters and interest groups, but Supreme Court justices are not accountable to anyone. That leaves them free to truely protect our Constitutional rights by making decisions that are sometimes unpopular. "Popular Opinion" does not rule the United States--the Constitution does, and its a good thing too.

So what about a womans right to privacy to prostitute herself? why is that not federally protected? Why is it not a federally protected right to privacy to use narcotics? Why doesnt right to privacy pertain to polygamy? I would have to disagree, Look at some of the reasons given by the justices who decided Roe v Wade, and then tell me they were following the constitution in their decision.You are right, public opinion does not rule in America, but neither does a Justice's preference. Picking and choosing what has a right to privacy is ludicrous. Yes there are certain amendments that grant specific privacy rights, but in no way does that mean Americans have an absolute right to privacy.