In the controversial abortion case Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion in the United State, the court wrote:
State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
Essentially, while the state does have the right to protect the life of both the mother and the unborn child, the woman’s right to privacy trumps the interest of the government in protecting the life of the citizens.
And in Griswold v Connecticut the Supreme Court also ruled that privacy trumps the state’s interest in matters involving contraception.
The Obama Administration is now arguing that our right to privacy must take a back seat to the government’s duty to protect us from terrorism. That now, even though our privacy allows us to terminate our own children or risk our lives in other ways in the name of Liberty and privacy, we must give up that privacy because the possibility that the government might actually find something by monitoring everything we do, think and say on the phone or on the internet could possibly, potentially, maybe, perhaps figure something out in time to prevent a bad guy from harming us.
Women die from abortions. Just ask “Dr.” Gosnell the abortionist that is now convicted of murder. Yet the same Obama Administration officials who tell us we must allow them to monitor everything we do, no matter who we are, do not have the same responsibility when it comes to abortion despite the risk to women and the certainty that the child will die.
In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that we have a right to privacy in our own homes:
“Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one’s own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.” (Stanley v Georgia)
Yet Obama thinks it is perfectly fine to reach into our homes, our computers and our phones and as long as we are not doing anything wrong we have nothing to fear.
The National Women’s Law Center website proclaims:
Roe did far more than establish the right to abortion; it solidified and expanded the constitutional “right to privacy,” which has also been described as the right to autonomy or to be let alone. This right to privacy is part of the right to liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which state that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
One of the main justifications that the left likes to use for this is “it started under Bush” – also known as the “Blame Bush” defense.
But there was one huge difference between Bush and Obama – the Press.
If Bush even came close to targeting groups like the Obama IRS has done, or lying to Americans like Obama did with Benghazi, the press would have been relentless in their pursuit.
Obama gets a pass.
The 1st Amendment was intended to serve as a check and balance on the government. Only a skeptical press can do that. When you have the bulk of the reporters, network chiefs and powers that be mesmerized by Barack Obama, unwilling to even sully O’s reputation in the least, there is no check. There is no balance. The Obama Administration even has the stones to request a meet “off the record” with the press to make stories unfavorable to them go away. And who can forget the blatant partisan “debate” episode when “moderator” Candy Crowley actually came to the defense of Obama about calling Benghazi a terrorist act? It was later confirmed he was not even talking about Benghazi when he said the word “terrorism” but for the lap dogs in the press, that was enough.
Obama can get away with murder. Somehow one suspects that Obama could bludgeon an infant to death with a puppy and the press would excuse him. And even blame Bush.
Suffice it to say we are presently operating without a safety net. The press is no longer working to keep the government honest and expose wrongdoing. Quite the opposite. They are now actively involved in helping Obama cover up any misdeeds.
And while I did not trust Bush any more than Obama, I was certain that the press had our backs.
But it is an interesting dynamic to hear the Obama Administration use the same arguments in favor of NSA spying on us “for our own good” that the opponents of abortion used in the Roe v. Wade case.
We can’t have it both ways. Either the government has the right to invade our privacy or they do not.
Feminists that are now supporting everything Obama does or wants to do, no matter what, would do well to pay attention here. If the government can come into our homes, our computers and our phones then they have all the justification they need to come back into our bedrooms.
The truth be told, Obama is already there.