Related Ideas | Review these ideas and then use the BACK key on your browser to go back to the page you were on. |
Acknowledging that the Constitution does not mention a right of
privacy, Blackmun cited 14 cases in which the Court had recognized
that "certain areas or zones of privacy" did exist under
the Constitution. These had their foundation in various amendments
(1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th).
Blackmun then stated his own view that the right of privacy was
founded in the 14th amendment and that it was "broad enough
to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her
pregnancy." The basis was that by denying her such a right
the state would impose "detriment" and "harm."
The right was said to be "fundamental" but not "absolute." It could be limited but only by a "compelling" state interest.
What does it mean to find a right 'in' the Constitution? For example, it might mean any of the following, or perhaps something else:
|
Which of these might apply to Roe and the right of privacy? Can you construct arguments for or against a constitutional right of privacy based on any of these?
It may be useful to note that in most of the controversial questions of constitutional interpretation, arguments depend upon an initial choice of interpretative principles. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Federalist Society, and Focus on the Family all begin with different interpretative principles. How ought one to choose such principles?