Talk:Right to Privacy - Revision history

DavidB4: sig

2021-01-22T21:28:28Z

sig

DavidB4 at 21:28, January 22, 2021

2021-01-22T21:28:14Z

DavidB4: re: abortion

2021-01-22T21:27:57Z

re: abortion

Goldwatergrrl at 19:22, May 26, 2018

2018-05-26T19:22:05Z

Goldwatergrrl: Association with Roe v. Wade

2018-05-26T19:14:19Z

Association with Roe v. Wade

DavidB4: signature and response

2018-05-23T02:53:50Z

signature and response

Goldwatergrrl: intro, and link between "privacy" and "abortion"

2018-05-23T02:18:41Z

intro, and link between "privacy" and "abortion"

New page

==Intro==
"The so-called right to privacy is usually used as a euphemism for abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion, and has little to do with real rights of privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment." - I don't think most people describing privacy in the sense of data, information or personal activity would be likely to think of abortion or RTL. Going the other direction, "privacy" was a legal basis of Roe v. Wade, linking abortion to the Griswold (the "penumbra of rights" decisions), but most people discussing Roe v. Wade today don't think of it in terms of privacy, as evidenced by the term "Choice" (and of course "Pro-Life") used to describe support of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Perhaps the reference to a (non-)link between privacy and abortion issues would be better placed under the Griswold section (as a 3rd-level or as a separate section, but I think 3rd-level ties it closer to Griswold).

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, January 22, 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]		:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]

−	::I know I'm a couple years late with this reply, but I still don't understand why the first sentence of this article talks about abortion. Perhaps the "privacy" argument was used in RvW, but that doesn't make the "Right to Privacy" from governments, commercial entities, stalkers, etc. any less real or valuable. Doing quick research, I found no prominent reverences of the "Right to Privacy" being used in regard to abortion, although I don't doubt that it has been. Should this into be re-written to prioritize topics a bit, or am I missing something.	+	::I know I'm a couple years late with this reply, but I still don't understand why the first sentence of this article talks about abortion. Perhaps the "privacy" argument was used in RvW, but that doesn't make the "Right to Privacy" from governments, commercial entities, stalkers, etc. any less real or valuable. Doing quick research, I found no prominent reverences of the "Right to Privacy" being used in regard to abortion, although I don't doubt that it has been. Should this into be re-written to prioritize topics a bit, or am I missing something. --[[User:DavidB4\|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4\|TALK]])</sup> 16:28, 22 January 2021 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, January 22, 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]		:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]

−	::I know I'm a couple years late to this ~~discussion~~, but I still don't understand why the first sentence of this article talks about abortion. Perhaps the "privacy" argument was used in RvW, but that doesn't make the "Right to Privacy" from governments, commercial entities, stalkers, etc. any less real or valuable. Doing quick research, I found no prominent reverences of the "Right to Privacy" being used in regard to abortion, although I don't doubt that it has been. Should this into be re-written to prioritize topics a bit, or am I missing something.	+	::I know I'm a couple years late with this reply, but I still don't understand why the first sentence of this article talks about abortion. Perhaps the "privacy" argument was used in RvW, but that doesn't make the "Right to Privacy" from governments, commercial entities, stalkers, etc. any less real or valuable. Doing quick research, I found no prominent reverences of the "Right to Privacy" being used in regard to abortion, although I don't doubt that it has been. Should this into be re-written to prioritize topics a bit, or am I missing something.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, January 22, 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]		:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]
		+
		+	::I know I'm a couple years late to this discussion, but I still don't understand why the first sentence of this article talks about abortion. Perhaps the "privacy" argument was used in RvW, but that doesn't make the "Right to Privacy" from governments, commercial entities, stalkers, etc. any less real or valuable. Doing quick research, I found no prominent reverences of the "Right to Privacy" being used in regard to abortion, although I don't doubt that it has been. Should this into be re-written to prioritize topics a bit, or am I missing something.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, May 26, 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:(Thx. for adding my attribution.)		:(Thx. for adding my attribution.)

−	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]	+	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. ... Yeah, that seems to work! --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, May 26, 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:

	:I have thought that this intro is a little abrupt, but I don't know much on the subject. I'm not opposed to such a change, but I'd want someone more knowledgeable to weigh in. --[[User:DavidB4\|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4\|TALK]])</sup> 22:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)		:I have thought that this intro is a little abrupt, but I don't know much on the subject. I'm not opposed to such a change, but I'd want someone more knowledgeable to weigh in. --[[User:DavidB4\|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4\|TALK]])</sup> 22:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
		+	:(Thx. for adding my attribution.)
		+
		+	:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. --[[User:Goldwatergrrl\|Goldwatergrrl]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, May 23, 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:
	"The so-called right to privacy is usually used as a euphemism for abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion, and has little to do with real rights of privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment." - I don't think most people describing privacy in the sense of data, information or personal activity would be likely to think of abortion or RTL. Going the other direction, "privacy" was a legal basis of Roe v. Wade, linking abortion to the Griswold (the "penumbra of rights" decisions), but most people discussing Roe v. Wade today don't think of it in terms of privacy, as evidenced by the term "Choice" (and of course "Pro-Life") used to describe support of the Roe v. Wade decision.		"The so-called right to privacy is usually used as a euphemism for abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion, and has little to do with real rights of privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment." - I don't think most people describing privacy in the sense of data, information or personal activity would be likely to think of abortion or RTL. Going the other direction, "privacy" was a legal basis of Roe v. Wade, linking abortion to the Griswold (the "penumbra of rights" decisions), but most people discussing Roe v. Wade today don't think of it in terms of privacy, as evidenced by the term "Choice" (and of course "Pro-Life") used to describe support of the Roe v. Wade decision.

−	Perhaps the reference to a (non-)link between privacy and abortion issues would be better placed under the Griswold section (as a 3rd-level or as a separate section, but I think 3rd-level ties it closer to Griswold).	+	Perhaps the reference to a (non-)link between privacy and abortion issues would be better placed under the Griswold section (as a 3rd-level or as a separate section, but I think 3rd-level ties it closer to Griswold). {{unsigned\|Goldwatergrrl}}
		+
		+	:I have thought that this intro is a little abrupt, but I don't know much on the subject. I'm not opposed to such a change, but I'd want someone more knowledgeable to weigh in. --[[User:DavidB4\|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4\|TALK]])</sup> 22:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)