Tuesday, July 10, 2018
In Brief Defence Of Roe v Wade And Casey v Planned Parenthood
Sincere question from a simple minded Canadian:
Why aren’t Roe or Casey defensible constitutional law?
1. If the state can’t tell you without justification that you can’t decide to have your appendix or tonsils removed or get a tattoo or cut yourself or what kind of sex to have in the privacy of your bedroom,
2. then how can it tell you can’t have an abortion before viability?
I.E. what legal principle allows you to do 1 but doesn’t allow you to do 2?
This is of course a different question than when life begins such that the state should protect it, which is a real question.
It’s a question that goes to the heart of the overarching criticism of Roe, that there is no constitutional right of privacy.
I’ve always thought that 1. correctly exemplifies the rationale for abortion before viability.
What am I missing?
It must be something.