It is not enumerated in the Constitution as a right reserved by the Federal government. Therefore, it is a right reserved by the states or by the people. Though some have tried, no state has been successful at legislating how many progeny a person can have. Therefore, it is a right reserved by the people.

Perhaps Startup can give us the full skinny on this?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I doubt that the woman's lawyer would fight the contempt charge with the 10th Amendment. Instead, the lawyer would probably use the so-called right to privacy embodied within the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

By using the 14th Amendment, the government would have to show that the judges order was necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and that is a very hard standard to satisfy.

But, even after considering the foregoing, the government might be able to satisfy the standard because what the woman is doing exceeds mere irresponsibility. Since her irresponsibility is harming child(ren), the Court that ultimately hears the case may be inclined to side with the judge.

Of course, taken to the extreme, a precedent effectively criminalizing irresponsible behavior might be ridiculous, but if the decision were tailored very narrowly, it might be upheld. The belief that two crack heads could be allowed to add a drug-addicted child to the rolls of the foster home population each year is unreasonable.

It would be a close case where the outcome would probably come down to the personal predilictions of the judge(s) who hear the case.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

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.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Just wondering, how would they enforce the decision against the woman? Monitor her 24/7? Sterilize her? If she has another child what could they do? She's a drug addict so fines wouldn't help, so would it be jail for her?

__________________

Yep, jail for contempt of court. The judge offered for the state to pay for her sterilization.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup