THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON ABORTION

The Right To Privacy Update below: 

As reported in the Media starting Monday night, the Supreme Court (Motto: precedent matters, except when it doesn't) has decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. In the leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito, there is the phrase "The constitution is silent on abortion."

In another post we will speak about our personal views on abortion. They may surprise you. For now we wish to discuss the judicial reasoning about the Constitution being silent on abortion. By overruling Roe, the States will now have the final say on whether a woman can have an abortion. Women in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and the like must be feeling well protected and secure. 

Here are some of the other things the Constitution is silent on, which means states may outlaw them. 

Dinner. Appendectomies. Dental care. Cars. Aeorplanes, Donuts. Starbucks. Baseball. The NFL Draft. Sirius Satellite Radio and the Morning Men show on MadDog radio. Concerts. Apple iPhones.  Pizza. Voir Dire.  The Sentencing Guidelines. Pineapple on Pizza (we agree in outlawing this). Lox and Bagels.  Crypto (Thank you Eth). Kittens. Zoos. Crayons.  Garden rakes. Meditation. HIIT Peloton classes and our fav teachers Hanna Frankson and Jen Sherman on the bike and Daniel McKenna for strength. Cafe Con Leche and Cuban Toast. Psychotherapy. Disney World. Surfing. Skiing. Boxing. The designated hitter (ditto on no problem outlawing this). Fireworks. Mini-skirts. Cardiac catheterization  when having a heart attack. 

Our point is, if they can deny federal protection and allow a state to outlaw one medical procedure, then every medical procedure is in jeopardy. 

If the yardstick is whatever is not mentioned in the constitution is fair game for a state to outlaw, then all sorts of activities from sports to exercise to foods can be banned. 

If a state decides coffee is dangerous, then the supreme court will not strike down that law. If a state decides football games on Sundays violates the Lord's day of rest, then there goes your Atlanta Falcons/Texans/Colts parlay. And if the state has a Jewish bent, then Saturday is the day of rest and no movie dates. If a state decides sex between people under 30 should be illegal, then so be it because as near as we can tell, the Constitution is silent on sex. 

Every Supreme Court case striking down sodomy laws are also now in jeopardy. Gay Marriage? Move to Canada. 

Someone explain to us why a State that adopts a belief that surgery, medicine, and medical treatments are bad (because the Governor and legislators have done their own research and decided that antibiotics are bad [sound familiar?] or that the polio vaccine is dangerous) cannot outlaw surgery and modern medicine techniques. Back to leeches. Prayer will save you, erythromycin will not, although swigging some bleach could help. 

This country is loudly and proudly returning to the dark ages. 

Update: We neglected to mention that the decision in this case opens the door for the court to reverse the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, a decision we have roundly criticized for decades.  The decision in Griswold found a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution. For those of you who are robed readers, a penumbra is an aura or shadow. It is most often used in astronomy contexts, in discussing the penumbra cast when the moon moves before the sun. A right to privacy is most certainly not mentioned in the Constitution.  Therefore, the decision in Griswold, its holding on privacy and the ability to purchase contraception, should now be considered in doubt. 

Again, for our readers who wear robes at work, the reason why the decision in Griswold concerns us, is, who is reading this penumbra? What standard is at use for ferreting out those rights hiding in the shadows cast by the Constitution? And if the Griswold court could find privacy in the penumbra, could not the Barrett Court find Jesus in the penumbra? Could not the Alito court find a mandate to not work on Sundays in the penumbra? 

Here is the problem: when you praise the decision in Griswold because you like the right to privacy, but ignore how they reached that decision- a personal opinion by a judge that a right was hiding in the shadows of the Constitution, then you open the door for Justice Barrett, Justice Altio and Justice Kavanaugh to find what they want to find in the same shadows. And trust us, they are not finding the right to privacy, the right for homosexuals to marry, and the right to be free from enhanced electronic surveillance in those shadows.