Why do some states feel like they can invade the privacy of women?
It seems absurd that an issue such as privacy, guaranteed in the constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, should have so many different definitions at the state level. The individual health of a woman is a private matter between her and her doctor. What goes on in the doctor’s office is none of the state’s business.
States rights over-reach
Yet we continually see legislators in different states introducing and passing legislation that’s an invasion of privacy or restricting health care services. All of this is made possible by the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Privacy rises above states rights
Under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution, if the goods and services don’t cross state
Transvaginal ultrasound, a little invasive.
lines, then congress can’t get involved. Consequently, you potentially have each of the 50 states creating their own definition of privacy found in the fourth and fourteenth amendments. A woman’s right to privacy rises above those state specific issues such as the dates for hunting season, fines for speeding or whether homeowners should by earthquake insurance. A woman’s right to privacy in inalienable and sacrosanct and no state should be allowed to tinker with her constitutional right.
All male legislators need a urethrotomy
The pro-life/anti-abortion movement is working at the state level to undermine the notion and constitutional right to privacy. We constantly hear of abortion restrictions, regulations or requirements at the state level such as waiting periods, tranvaginal ultrasounds, and extra-special clinic rules to reduce the availability women’s health services. Every man wanting a vasectomy should have to endure an urethrotomy to show him where sperm comes from. I have had the scope stuck down my penis for surgery and it wasn’t pleasant. It was certainly an invasion of privacy had I not consented to it. I don’t see how anyone could conceive that legislating the use of a transvaginal ultra sound wand wasn’t an invasion of privacy.
Church tax? Registration? All permissible under the constitution
How would the evangelical Christians like it if states started targeting religious freedom? Just because a state removed the favorable tax status for churches, required people to register when they became a church member or restricted proselytizing on T.V., radio or in person, that wouldn’t mean a state was prohibiting people from the free exercise of religion. Of course, religious groups wouldn’t see it that way, but how is that different from passing privacy invading legislation? There is no difference because what is not delegated to the United States is reserved for the states.
Nibbling at the edges
It is not lost on me that defenders of the second amendment feel the same way about the variety of proposed restrictions on gun ownership at the state level. In the absence of federal jurisdiction, states under the guise of their “rights” feel free to nibble at the edges of our individual U.S. constitutional rights. In both instances, gun and privacy rights, there needs to be a uniform set of national standards that can’t be eroded away by the states.
Privacy changes from state to state…stupid
If the right to free speech, religion, bear arms and privacy are the bed rocks of our constitution, we can’t have each state massaging a different definition for each right. State’s rights have hobbled the U.S. in forging a path toward consensus on human rights for all individuals. It is ridiculous that a person’s right to own a gun or a woman’s right to privacy would differ between states. Some of these states have banned certain surveillance equipment to protect privacy rights but find it perfectly acceptable to humiliate woman with special procedures before she can have an abortion.
States want to be little kingdoms or countries
Congress is a reflection of personal motives even within a community. Every member is more obsessed with protecting their own state than they are with building a national consensus on issues that are tearing our nation apart. The Supreme Court is no better when it comes to a vision of human rights. I can only guess that they rationalize the different definitions on personal privacy with a shrug of their shoulders and the knowledge that our constitution enshrined the ability to discriminate with the 10th amendment.
Congressional cowards
The Congress, Supreme Court and President are cowards. True leaders would work to put the U.S. on a path where, regardless of what state a woman resided in, all the same rules would apply to her right to privacy and her health wouldn’t be put in jeopardy by a lack of health care services.
Women’s health is not a religious liberty issue.
