0 Votes
The Limits of Privacy
On Monday, advocates of the rights of privacy and expressive association were dealt a pair of blows from the state of South Dakota and the United States Supreme Court. First, South Dakota’s Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill banning virtually all abortions in that state, including cases of rape and incest, in the first direct challenge to the privacy rights outlined in Roe v. Wade since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Second, the Supreme Court overruled a Third Circuit Court decision that struck down the ‘Solomon Amendment’ in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. In their decision, the nation’s high court ruled that forcing law schools to accommodate military recruiters did not violate their rights of ‘expressive association.’
OmniNerds have touched on the issues of both privacy and associative rights recently. On the surface, it seems to be something of a dichotomy that one person could, for example, simultaneously favor less government involvement in personal autonomy and expressive association in the cases of the Boy Scouts, the Kamehameha Schools, and the proposed Catholic town in Florida, and favor more governmental intervention in the case of Yale Law School and abortion. Are these views mutually exclusive, or just logically nuanced? Where should the line be drawn between the individual rights of privacy, personal autonomy, and association and the obligations to life, governmental necessity, and non-discrimination?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Official Denial of Alien Ambassadorship, by BillMTracer over 2 years ago
- Wal-Mart's New Everyday Low Prices, by jmarkdavison almost 7 years ago
- Patent Help, by Brandon about 7 years ago
- Bush's Catch 22, by mikeforbes about 7 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
the difference by Geoffrey
Don’t play dumb here; the differences are well publicized.
The Solomon amendment is about federal funding. All bets are off for the freedoms you retain when you accept money from someone.
As for abortion: to some, this issue is about murder, not "privacy." How is that not the government’s business?
Intrusion can be good by Anonymous
Let’s look at the big issues. The difference is as obvious as day. The Republicans are NOT against government intrusion. They’re NOT for smaller government. They’re just against intrusion that limits their ability to advance their agenda (centered on greed, violence and intolerance).
Examples of Republicans wanting LESS government control:
They’re against corporate responsibility for producing dangerous products (want to eliminate class action suits). Because this interfere’s with the ability to make money unethically.
They’re against government control of hand-gun and semi-automatic weapons purchase, even for potential criminals or terrorists. Because this is consistent with their philosophy that violence is the first choice to solve problems.
They’re against government protection of the environment. Because this interfere’s with the ability to make money unethically.
Examples of Republicans wanting MORE government control:
They’re in favor of forcing schools to accept their guest list because some schools may not otherwise invite military recruiters (read "salesmen" in civilian terminology) forced upon them on the government’s schedule.
They’re in favor of laws that limit a church’s freedom to establish their own sacraments when it involves gay/lesbian marriage. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
They’re in favor of laws that eliminate a women’s right to make her own medical and religious decision on perhaps the toughest decision some women ever face, whether to have an abortion. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
They’re in favor of forcing schools to teach biblical creationism. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
When is anyone going to stand up again for the real American values we were founded on? Who’s speaking in favor of true religious freedom? Who thinks responsibility applies to corporations and government, not just unwed mothers and single parents?
People on both sides of these issues just want to use government to advance their side. Who’s side are you on?