Vigilantism, Texas, Privacy and Liberty: Waiting Once Again for The Supreme Court to Speak
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijppa.819Keywords:
Right to privacy; precedents; fetal viability; vigilantism; liberty; 14th AmendmentAbstract
Is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy? This is not an article in support of or in opposition to abortion rights. In fact, it is not an article about abortion at all. Rather, in light of two actions of the United States Supreme Court that took place in 2021, the authors have undertaken in Part I of this study a review of Supreme Court precedents, statutory materials, and other state and federal legislative actions relating to the issues of privacy and liberty. The article is written in the context of the debate over reproductive rights and examines the rationale used by courts to make critical distinctions in cases where not only reproductive rights were at issue, but also where questions were raised relating to the existence of a broader constitutionally protected right to privacy which we will consider in other discreet areas in Part II of the study.
Downloads
References
Annas, G.L. & Elias, H. (1999). Thalidomide and the Titanic: reconstructing the technology tragedies of the twentieth century. American Journal of Public Health, 89(1): 98-101.
Bailey, M.J. (2010). “Momma’s got the pill”: how Anthony Comstock and Griswold v.
Connecticut shaped US childbearing. American Economic Review, 100(1): 98-129.
Baird, P.D. (2019). Miranda memories. Litigation, 45: 33-37.
Bakst, L. (2019). Constitutionally unconstitutional? When state legislatures pass laws contrary to Supreme Court precedent. University of California Davis Law Review, 53: 63-91.
Brown, J. (2007). A cheap shot from ACOG. American Life League.org (December 19, 2007). Available: https://www.all.org/2007/12
Calabresi, S.G. & Agudo, S.E. (2008). Individual rights under state constitutions when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868: what rights are deeply rooted in American history and tradition? University of Texas Law Review, 87: 7-120.
Candelario, R. (2012). Abortion performance and politics. UCLA Center for the Study of Women (March 15, 2012). Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7sv5h222.
Clowes, B. (2017). Of acorns, eggs and captive violinists: when does human life begin? Human Life International (April 16, 2017). Available: https://www.hli.org/resources/captiveeggs-and-captive-violinists/#respond
Condic, M. (2014). A scientific view of when life begins. On Point (Charlotte Lozier Institute) (June 11, 2014). Available: https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-lifebegins/
DeMoss, H.R., & Coblenz, M. (2008). An unenumerated right: two views on the right of privacy. Texas Tech Law Review, 40: 249-276.
Durham, R. (2021). Supreme Court preview: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. University of Cincinnati Law Review (online). Available:
https://uclawreview.org/2021/07/13/supreme-court-preview-dobbs-v-jackson-womenshealth/
Fallon, R.H. (2007). Strict judicial scrutiny. University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Law Review, 54: 1267-1337.
Freeman, E. (2013). Giving Casey its bite back: the role of rational basis review in undue burden analysis. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48: 279-323. Giles, S.G. (2017). Restoring Casey’s undue-burden standard after Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Quinnipiac Law Review, 35: 701-767.
Justia (2007). Gonzales v. Carhart. Available:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/
Lennerhed, L. (2019). Finkbine flew to Sweden: abortion and disability in the early 1960s: 2545, in Abortion across borders: transnational travel and access to abortion services (eds. Sethna C. & Davis, G). Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Md.
Lewis, B. (2021). What does the controversial Texas Heartbeat Act mean for abortion? These women’s clinics weigh-in. DFW Community News (June 30, 2012). Available:
https://www.newsbreak.com/amp/samsung-daily/n/0ajKvMA5
Liptak, A., Goodman, J.D., & Tavernise, S. (2021). Supreme Court, breaking silence, won’t block Texas abortion law. New York Times (September 1, 2021). Available:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html
Lopez, S., Mitchell, E., Sekaran, R., & Williams, T. (2017). Access to contraception.
Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, 18: 439-473.
Maltbie, A. (2021). “Stories for reproductive freedom.” A rhetorical analysis of storytelling on NARAL pro-choice America’s website. Young Scholars in Writing (February 15, 2021), 18: 27-39.
McCarthy, E. (2018). In defense of Griswold v. Connecticut: privacy, originalism, and the iceberg theory of omission. Willamette Law Review, 54: 335-370.
Mitchell, J.F. (2018). The writ-of-erasure fallacy. Virginia Law Review, 104: 933-1019.
Najmabadi, S. (2021). Gov. Abbott signs into law one of the nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Texas Tribune (May 19, 2021). Available: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-billabortions-law/
Nunez-Eddy, C. (2017). Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (1994). The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (May 25, 2017). Available: https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/freedom-accessclinic-entrances-act-1994
Ohlhoff, E.L. (2021). Bishop James McHugh, a pro-life champion for more than 35 years (June 10, 2021). Available: https://akacatholic.com/bishop-james-t-mchugh-the-forgotten-manin-the-mccarrick-equation-part-2/
Pavlinich, A. (2020). The problems inherent in the court’s broad construction of the 14th Amendment. Grove City College Journal of Law and Public Policy, 11: 41-61.
Pietroforte, N. (2010). Constitutional limitations of the privacy framework advanced in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade. US-China Law Review, 7: 40. Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/63901733/EISEN
Pincus, R. (2013). 5 ugly facts about the new Texas abortion law. Mic.com (July 19, 2013). Available: https://www.mic.com/profile/rachel-pincus-16221665
Roy, J. (2021). The Texas abortion law and what ‘6 weeks pregnant’ actually means. L.A. Times
(September 9, 2021). Available: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-09-
/texas-abortion-law-what-6-weeks-pregnant-actually-means
Sandlos, K. (2000). Unifying force: rhetorical reflections on a pro-choice image, in Transformations. Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK.
Schroeder, A.B. (2000). Keeping police out of the bedroom: Justice John Marshall Harlan, Poe v. Ullman, and the limits of conservative privacy. Virginia Law Review, 86(5): 1045-1094).
Totenberg, N. (2021). The Supreme Court sets a date for arguments in case that could challenge Roe v. Wade. National Public Radio (September 20, 2021). Available:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/20/1038972266/supreme-court-date-roe-wade--dobbsjackson-womens
Ulrich, P.G. (2013). Miranda v. Arizona: history, memories, and perspectives. University of Phoenix Law Review, 7: 203-288.
Webb, J.F. (1963). Canadian thalidomide experience. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 89(19): 987-992.
Wharton, L., Freitsche, S. & Kolbert, K. (2006). Preserving the core of Roe: reflections on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18: 317-387.
Whitman, C. (2002). Looking back on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Michigan Law Review, 100(7): 1980-1996.
Williams, R.C. (2010). The one and only substantive due process clause. Yale Law Journal, 120: 408-512.
WEBPAGE
Center for Reproductive Rights (2018). Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs (March 19, 2018). Available: https://reproductiverights.org/case/jackson-womens-health-organization-vdobbs/ (last visited September 26, 2021).
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2021). 2021 U.S. LEXIS 2556.
Doe v. Bolton (1973). 410 U.S. 179.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). 405 U.S. 438.
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). 550 U.S. 124.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). 381 U.S. 926.
June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020). 140 S. Ct. 2103.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923). 262 U.S. 390.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). 268 U.S. 510.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). 505 U.S. 833.
Poe v. Ullman (1961). 367 U.S. 497.
Roe v. Wade (1973). 410 U.S. 113.
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). 530 U.S. 914.
Tileston v. Ullman (1943). 318 U.S. 44.
United States v. Vuitch (1971). 402 U.S. 62.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). 136 S. Ct. 2292.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Austin Reeve (2021). 594 U.S. _____.
STATUTORY MATERIALS
(Connecticut) Comstock Act of 1873. 17 Stat. 598.
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. Public Law No. 103-259.
Human Life Protection Act (2019). HB 314 (Alabama).
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Public Law No. 108-105.
Texas Heartbeat Act (2021). S.B. No. 8
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Richard J. Hunter, Jr, Hctor R. Lozada , John H. Shannon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
