Overturning `Roe' has other implications

To the Editor:

Overruling Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided has implications far beyond abortion. Such action logically eliminates “never maskers” best argument for their claimed constitutional freedom. For antivaxxers, invalidating Roe will reaffirm there is no constitutional personal or privacy right as against a public health law to refuse a vaccination. No Roe may also eliminate or adversely affect both sexes' existing constitutional freedom to practice birth control. That is just the beginning.

Roe holds that a limited range of protected personal rights and freedoms are established in such fields as procreation, marriage and children by the Constitution's 14th Amendment. This “protected zone” concept was previously explained in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to practice birth control as against a Connecticut law which made that a crime. Roe relies on Griswold and the “zone” cases it identified, but concludes the source of those protected freedoms is the 14th, not the Ninth Amendment as originally thought in Griswold. Any argument Roe was wrongly decided requires a court to look at the prior cases to determine if they support that “zone” concept. If they don't, Roe falls, Griswold probably falls, and the prior mandatory vaccination/ sterilization cases Griswold references, which hold there is no privacy or personal right in the Constitution to refuse, are reaffirmed. Goodbye to such claims of no masks, no shots, and the right to use condoms or pills!

Roe has itself been relied upon in subsequent cases, including the gay marriage case. All of this and healthcare are at risk from the new appointee, who advocated overruling Roe in 2006. Why isn't the administration showing its supporters they potentially stand to lose more than they might gain? Steve Monroe

Sonora

Myrna Doering Jamestown