If there is a privacy right to decisional and personal autonomy, but such right doesn’t extend to a woman having the decision and autonomy to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re legally making women second class citizens and appropriating their wombs.
Fetal 'personhood' is a daft idea, but, even if a fetus were a person, that shouldn't have to raise such difficult questions. Why would a fetus have rights to someone else's body? What other persons in our law have rights to another's body?
It would have to be interpreted instead as a form of parental responsibility. And that raises the question of what constitutes consent to parenthood. The simple act of becoming pregnant - which can easily result from both nonconsensual sex and from the failure of a contraceptive, even when used responsibly - cannot possibly be sufficient to yield legal consent to parenthood.
Properly understood, the instances in which even a fetus which were a legal person would have rights that would conflict with the rights of the person whose body it inhabits, should be rare indeed.
What about fraudulent inducement to consent to parenthood? I wonder what kind of damages that would cover. Now our legal theories are getting some "life"
More Christian Taliban zealots.......and misogyny laws and fetus fetish. I must be monitored at all times since I took fruit from the tree in garden of eden......and I'm not even a real person either, just made from Adam's rib.
I am reasonably sure that the justices of the Florida court are younger than I am and thus likely to have been in law school after me--and thus required to read and analyze both Roe and Griswold. It is clear there what SCOTUS meant by a right of privacy. It doesn't MATTER whether that was accepted or rejected by Dobbs--abortion is what people in 1980 (and the court in 1989) UNDERSTOOD by the right of privacy because, at the time Roe said, it did. . All Dobbs did was say "well, a right of privacy isn't in our Constitution." (Alito SAID "abortion" isn't mentioned, but the rejection of Roe/Griswold's reasoning extends the right rejected to include privacy in general)
But it IS in Florida's constitution. The very word. Placed there when "right of privacy" included abortion, even in the freakin' dictionaries.
Did the Florida court provide any specifics about what they thought the "right of privacy" must mean? Do they include the right to contraception, or is that also now on the table because the reasoning of Roe depended on the reasoning of Griswold? Certainly a lot of GOOPERS are suggesting that this right is also fair game.
What dictionary did they consult to decide all this? Certainly not Merriam Webster. That dictionary CITES Griswold and Roe for the legal meaning of privacy.
I wonder how DeSantis will like all of this being hung around his neck, because he literally picked the judges who made the decisions today.
And when—and I will say when—abortion rights are returned to women this fall (yes, even in miserable Florida), I wonder how he'll feel when folks talk about overturning DeSantis' ban on healthcare rights.
I just wish Georgians had the right to a citizen initiative.
The “Dobbs” court has shown the way to a novel theory of jurisprudence: Don’t like the facts? Make up new ones; Don’t like the precedents? Misrepresent or ignore them; Don’t like the laws? See “facts.”
Six weeks is insane. My republican friends who voted for Trump/Desantis are shocked to this happened, and I’m shocked they are shocked. Mob rules voting really hurt Florida.
I would not be surprised if both the abortion and pot amendments pass and the Democrats carry Florida - subject to Republican efforts to steal the election. I am convinced that a lot of women will go to the polls without ever admitting that they’re voting for the abortion amendment and Biden.
If there is a privacy right to decisional and personal autonomy, but such right doesn’t extend to a woman having the decision and autonomy to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, you’re legally making women second class citizens and appropriating their wombs.
I've always thought second class citizen is too generous of a term for what these laws do to women. It really understates the damage.
Fetal 'personhood' is a daft idea, but, even if a fetus were a person, that shouldn't have to raise such difficult questions. Why would a fetus have rights to someone else's body? What other persons in our law have rights to another's body?
It would have to be interpreted instead as a form of parental responsibility. And that raises the question of what constitutes consent to parenthood. The simple act of becoming pregnant - which can easily result from both nonconsensual sex and from the failure of a contraceptive, even when used responsibly - cannot possibly be sufficient to yield legal consent to parenthood.
Properly understood, the instances in which even a fetus which were a legal person would have rights that would conflict with the rights of the person whose body it inhabits, should be rare indeed.
What about fraudulent inducement to consent to parenthood? I wonder what kind of damages that would cover. Now our legal theories are getting some "life"
In the coming 30 days every woman in Florida should stock up on Plan B.
More Christian Taliban zealots.......and misogyny laws and fetus fetish. I must be monitored at all times since I took fruit from the tree in garden of eden......and I'm not even a real person either, just made from Adam's rib.
Weird use of first person in an unsigned opinion.
I am reasonably sure that the justices of the Florida court are younger than I am and thus likely to have been in law school after me--and thus required to read and analyze both Roe and Griswold. It is clear there what SCOTUS meant by a right of privacy. It doesn't MATTER whether that was accepted or rejected by Dobbs--abortion is what people in 1980 (and the court in 1989) UNDERSTOOD by the right of privacy because, at the time Roe said, it did. . All Dobbs did was say "well, a right of privacy isn't in our Constitution." (Alito SAID "abortion" isn't mentioned, but the rejection of Roe/Griswold's reasoning extends the right rejected to include privacy in general)
But it IS in Florida's constitution. The very word. Placed there when "right of privacy" included abortion, even in the freakin' dictionaries.
Did the Florida court provide any specifics about what they thought the "right of privacy" must mean? Do they include the right to contraception, or is that also now on the table because the reasoning of Roe depended on the reasoning of Griswold? Certainly a lot of GOOPERS are suggesting that this right is also fair game.
What dictionary did they consult to decide all this? Certainly not Merriam Webster. That dictionary CITES Griswold and Roe for the legal meaning of privacy.
I wonder how DeSantis will like all of this being hung around his neck, because he literally picked the judges who made the decisions today.
And when—and I will say when—abortion rights are returned to women this fall (yes, even in miserable Florida), I wonder how he'll feel when folks talk about overturning DeSantis' ban on healthcare rights.
I just wish Georgians had the right to a citizen initiative.
Clair here💕Just wondering 🤔 if chemical birth control agents go away, will also condoms , diaphragms and withdrawal..
Mandy we would have to consider the Arizona Senators method of aspirin between the knees or a tight strong around the male organ..
Al of this stuff is just plain nuts.. yet,
just consider the source..
I’ll be glad when the election cycle ends and we can start the rebuilding process..💕Clair
The “Dobbs” court has shown the way to a novel theory of jurisprudence: Don’t like the facts? Make up new ones; Don’t like the precedents? Misrepresent or ignore them; Don’t like the laws? See “facts.”
Six weeks is insane. My republican friends who voted for Trump/Desantis are shocked to this happened, and I’m shocked they are shocked. Mob rules voting really hurt Florida.
I would not be surprised if both the abortion and pot amendments pass and the Democrats carry Florida - subject to Republican efforts to steal the election. I am convinced that a lot of women will go to the polls without ever admitting that they’re voting for the abortion amendment and Biden.