Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aether
It is my understanding that the right of privacy generally protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing. But since the latter can be a subject of the governmental infringement, why can't procreation?
|
It is important to remember that the so-called "right to privacy" is a judicially created construct. The Constitution does not require it (other than the part that actually speak to the right (i.e. 3rd amendment right to be free from mandatory quartering of soldiers, 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.)).
Even with the "right to privacy," the government can infringe on fundamental rights IF it can show that the law, or ruling, or order, etc. is NECESSARY to achieve a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. That is a hard standard to satisfy so when we talk about fundamental rights, we often consider them absolute. But, it is important to remember that nothing is absolute.
In this case, the existance of a child COULD tip the scale and allow the government more latitude than it would have if it were to ban the woman's right to engage in sexual intercourse. That this woman's irresponsibility will probably create a drug-addicted child that she has no intention of caring for MIGHT satisfy the government's burden to show a compelling state interest. I don't know, because a good argument could be made on both sides of the issue and that is why I hedged my opinion in my first thread.
If the woman does have another child and she is found in contempt, I have no doubt that the SCOTUS will eventually end up hearing the appeal.