Since Roe v Wade was decided, everyone learned how and why SCOTUS ruled in favor of allowing women to obtain an abortion. That decision hinged on women's right to privacy. Despite the precedence standing for nearly 50 years, SCOTUS got it wrong. There is no right to "privacy" in the 14th Amendment. However, there is a clause within that amendment that directly applies to "personal liberty."
"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."
The legal definition of liberty is the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)."
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not [a] person. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean, is as follows:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or "extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
What the 14th Amendment does in fact state regarding the legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law for persons is ... that they are only bestowed upon [a] person once they are either born or naturalized. Since this topic involves abortion, being born is the only legal standard clearly demarcated within the 14th Amendment that establishes those rights, privileges and equal protection of the law upon a person.
States restricting or outlawing abortion is an "unjustified intrusion on personal security." If children are protected from "wrongfully or excessively administered corporal punishment, whether or not such interest was protected by statute," then girls and women impregnated, either against their will, willingly, or ignorantly are likewise protected in their preserved liberty from deprivation of their personal liberty without due process for the very same reasons cited in Ingraham v. Wright.
"The Court also appeared to have expanded the notion of “liberty” to include the right to be free of official stigmatization, and found that such threatened stigmatization could in and of itself require due process.4 Thus, in Wisconsin v. Constantineau,5 the Court invalidated a statutory scheme in which persons could be labeled “excessive drinkers,” without any opportunity for a hearing and rebuttal, and could then be barred from places where alcohol was served. The Court, without discussing the source of the entitlement, noted that the governmental action impugned the individual’s reputation, honor, and integrity." 6
The very same application could, and can still be, directly applied to pregnant girls and women who are neither wed or ready, for whatever reason they provide, for a pregnancy and the 18 years of legal responsibility they have upon birth of their child. They do not deserve stigmatization let alone ostracization for merely being pregnant, and/or choosing to have an abortion precisely because they are not ready to become a responsible mother.
The fact remains that the pregnant girl or woman is [a] person, who possesses "personal liberty," and is endowed with all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law. A pregnancy has none of these things. None.
So how can anyone argue that which has no protections = to that of an actual person with agency and personal liberty, has far more protections that she? It's insane. It's absurd. It's illogical. It is illegal. It's unconstitutional.
The Constitution doesn't cover a lot of things, but they are implied. Personal Liberty rights does cover abortion, and I showed how by the very language used in its definition and the law.
Example: right to travel, it is not expressly written thereof in the US Constitution, but it is implied AND has been ruled a right of personal liberty, one's freedom of movement. Kent v Dulles (1958)
Example: Right to marry other races (interracial marriage) isn't expressly written in the US Constitution either, but via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (EPC), it was inferred/implied via personal liberty rights that people had the right to marry outside of their own race. Loving v Virginia (1967)
Need I go on with more examples?
SCOTUS screwed the pooch claiming there was a right of privacy implied within the 14th, when there was not. What they needed to do was infer upon personal liberty, the freedom to live and do as they please, especially with their own body, that doesn't violate law or impede a legally legit social or governmental purpose. Had they ruled in Roe v Wade as they did in Lawrence v Texas (2003), overturning Texas' 'anti-sodomy law,' "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," and the law violated the same EPC of the 14th.
The obvious conclusion here is that SCOTUS should have defaulted to personal liberty, which is in the Constitution as well as state and federal statutory law. Personal liberty is sacrosanct. That liberty, that freedom needs to be restored for all girls and women faced with life altering circumstances that pregnancy thrusts upon them. It's her body, it's her life, it's her choice. Period.
Comentarios