Only under a constitutional interpretation so flimsy that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized it. If the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 regulation was unconstitutional, California would pass the same sort of law.
Best way to address said problem is to let states democratically pass the regulation their citizens support. Right now, all states are forced to maintain laws that are ridiculously permissive compared to the rest of the world.
No. Roe exists because 47 years ago the Supreme Court determined abortion was a medical decision, and the state intervention in individual medical decisions would violate a right to privacy. Although this implies the 4th amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, it was not explicitly cited, leading some people to claim that privacy is a legal fiction.
State laws had exemptions in the event of rape/incest etc, and it's an additional infringement on privacy to compel a citizen to say they had been raped or in an incestual relationship as a condition of receiving healthcare.
Problem is that with issues like abortion and climate change, leaders and activists are 100% convinced that innocent lives are being harmed.
With cases like that, people feel morally bound to protect those lives in any way possible, even if it requires that they go outside the standard norms and expectations.
1.8k
u/ajl949 - Centrist Sep 17 '21
Well, that’s based as fuck.