mike (don_negro) wrote,
mike
don_negro

I just had a very scary thought. Starting in about the mid-70s, you get a constant series of Supreme Court decisions progressively limiting the scope of the 4th Amendment, to the point that it almost doesn't exist today. Indeed, several of John Roberts opinions back in the Reagan years refer to it as the 'so-called 'right to privacy''. We've always thought about these roll-backs as being actions in the War on Drugs, and indeed, it's almost always been drug cases from which these limiting opinions came.

But it just occurred to me that Roe is based on the 4th amendment. Maybe all those limiting opinions have been a giant flanking maneuver, a 30-year von Schlieffen plan.

Of course, a simpler theory is that the drug warriors were simply fascists who hated any limits on their power, and were going to attack Mapp et. al, regardless, and that Roe was simply the Warren Court's Bridge Too Far. (Yes, I know it was during Burger's tenure, but it was still basically a Warren Court decision.) With Roe, they finally got something they could work with. Fear for one's immortal soul has been fundraising gold for about as long as humans have existed, and no patriarchal society has ever really been comfortable with the inherent power women have over the life or death of their children. (Which is totally understandable from an Ev Psych perspective.)

None of this is to shit-talk Roe or a woman's right to choose. It's to make sure we've got an accurate accounting of the costs involved, so that we can understand how much it's worth to find a different way to achieve our ends. Because the way we're doing it is looking less and less defendable by the day.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 14 comments