Savage On Griswold
Dan Savage on the right to privacy:
In 1961, Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, opened a birth-control clinic in New Haven. She was promptly arrested for dispensing contraceptives to a married couple and was eventually convicted and fined $100. She appealed, and when her case reached the Supreme Court in 1965, seven of nine justices voted to overturn the conviction, striking down Connecticut's law against selling birth control (effectively overturning similar laws in other states). Americans, the court ruled, had a fundamental right to privacy.Much of American jurisprudence since then flows from Griswold - including Roe v. Wade, which found that women had a right to abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas of 2003, which found that the right to privacy prevents the government from banning sodomy, gay and straight.
Problematically, however, a right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The majority in Griswold held that it was among the unenumerated rights implied by the Constitution's "penumbras" (which sound like something a sodomy law might keep you away from). The Griswold case didn't settle the matter, and the right to privacy quickly became the Tinkerbell of constitutional rights: clap your hands if you believe.
...Now it is Samuel Alito's turn. Senator Specter says he believes the nominee accepts the idea of a constitutional right to privacy. But we can still count on Judge Alito to be grilled about Griswold during his confirmation hearings next month. Does he believe in a right to privacy or not? Can he locate it in the Constitution or not?
Well, if the right to privacy is so difficult for some people to locate in the Constitution, why don't we just stick it in there? Wouldn't that make it easier to find?
If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, why can't the Democrats propose a right to privacy amendment? Making this implicit right explicit would forever end the debate about whether there is a right to privacy. And the debate over the bill would force Republicans who opposed it to explain why they don't think Americans deserve a right to privacy - which would alienate not only moderates, but also those libertarian, small-government conservatives who survive only in isolated pockets on the Eastern Seaboard and the American West.
Of course, passing a right to privacy amendment wouldn't end the debate over abortion - that argument would shift to the question of whether abortion fell under the amendment. But given the precedent of Roe, abortion rights would be on firmer ground than they are now.
So, come on, Democrats, go on the offensive - start working on a bill. Not only would enshrining the right to privacy in the Constitution secure a right that most Americans rightly believe they are already entitled to, it would also allow Estelle Griswold to finally rest in peace.
I'm in total agreement with Dan -- from a fantasy perspective, that is. Sadly, the Democrats are utter nincompoops without a message or a plan, and seem unlikely to offer anything of practical value anytime soon.
The problem re: abortion isn't just nincompoopery, it's cowardice... Pro-abortion forces don't have enough faith in their own persuasion to convince Congress to pass supportive legislation. For thirty years we've watched Scotus noms jump through hoops and seen all these very stern, concerned Senators parse the rhetoric with Ouija boards. It's pathetic. Pro-abortion forces DESERVE to be afraid, but the rest of us don't deserve to have our public processes mocked in this way.
Crid at November 17, 2005 7:46 AM
Frankly, I don't really understand why the Democrats should be expected to favor a "right to privacy" any more than Republicans. Presumably, "privacy" refers to vastly more than sexual matters, sexual preferences, pornography, birth control, etc. What about privacy in business contracts, the ability of "private" schools, clubs, or other organizations to discriminate, the potential right to not tell the government how you earned your income (relating to taxes), the right to carry a concealed weapon, etc. I can easily imagine many Republicans believing in increasing our rights to privacy in such matters, while many Democrats would be voraciously opposed. So... what exactly do you mean by "privacy," hmmm?
Annonymous at November 17, 2005 10:39 AM
Privacy in the sense that people shouldn't give a hoot if bill clinton gets a blowjob but should probably raise their eyebrows if it turns out he hasn't paid taxes since the Carter era.
Jake at November 17, 2005 11:07 AM
The government has no business telling me what I can do in bed, or with whom, or what I can or can't ingest, or whether I can or can't hallucinate if I so desire. I don't believe we should pay taxes for anyone but the poor's children to attend schools, nor do I believe we should pay taxes for NPR. Nevertheless, that's about the public good, not my private right to "the pursuit of happiness." There's the dividing line between public and private. It's a do-no-harm thing. If I'm having an orgy with all the residents of the apartment building next to me, it's none of your fucking business. It would be my fucking business, yes, but none of yours.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2005 5:30 PM
The tax example was intended to refer not to the payment of taxes, but rather to the government's invasion of one's privacy regarding it demanding to know HOW one earns one's money. How is it the government's right to know who your employer is? Liberals just love violating the privacy rights of conservatives. Let me put it to you this way: Big government is 100% inconsistent with individual privacy. And yet, liberals are always in favor of bigger and bigger government (except, of course, in the one area that is constitutionally mandated as government's primary responsibility, i.e., to secure the common defense)!
Not given at November 17, 2005 7:39 PM
To Anonymous & Not given:
We know who you are and do not appreciate your attitude.
PS- Just Kidding!
PPS- But not really- we know who you are.
PPPS- Again, just kidding. sort of.
e at the IRS/NSA/ at November 17, 2005 7:57 PM
Oh, please. The liberals vs. conservatives plea is so tired. I'm neither, FYI. I'm for small government -- unlike nary-a-veto George Bush, who's the biggest big-spending Dem we've had in the White House in ages! Ted Stevens, Mr. Bridge To Nowhere Alaska, he's a Republican, isn't he? Politicians, left and right, are sleazebags. All this pissying about liberals, as if the word means "turd," is just immature and counterproductive. What is this, seventh-grade soccer? Then it makes sense to take a side and stick to it no matter what. Again, George Bush spends like there's no tomorrow (and maybe because he's a fundanutter who believes we're all on the tail end of civilization, and Armageddon's a'comin'). I loathed John Kerry, but the "saddle-up-the-dinosaurs" shit, I just can't get behind.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2005 8:49 PM
We couldn't manage to pass an amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. Is a right-to-privacy amendment more or less likely to pass, do you think?
LYT at November 17, 2005 11:56 PM
> Is a right-to-privacy amendment
> more or less likely to pass, do
> you think?
Less!
(crickets)
*WHY*??!!
The faults of the ERA were apparent. Schlafly was not the problem. (She wasn't the solution either, IJS)
Crid at November 18, 2005 1:12 AM
[quote]
If I'm having an orgy with all the residents of the apartment building next to me, it's none of your fucking business. It would be my fucking business, yes, but none of yours.
[/quote]
where is this apartment?
liberal v. conservative isn't really accurate, as there to it than just left or right.
www.politicalcompass.org
this website gives you two dimensions, social and economic, to place your beliefs. i was right where i thought i'd be: in the middle and downtown julie brown.
g*mart at November 18, 2005 9:15 PM
Leave a comment