The 2020 article penned by Conor Friedersdorf provides a summary of these concerns: from the right to peaceful assembly and the legitimacy of mask-wearing mandates and medical rationing (Friedersdorf, 2020). Although many issues raised in the article are valid, some lack empirical support and address potential policies that have not yet been conceived, taking the events of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic as a basis.
The article raises the following questions: can preventative measures during the pandemic be viewed as violating liberty? Can an informed person have the autonomy to choose to act in a manner that endangers them?
Roe v. Wade is a landmark case that ensured the protection of the right of pregnant women to terminate the pregnancy before the point of fetus viability without government restriction. It was argued that the government could not impede the rights of a pregnant woman to a safe termination during the first trimester of the pregnancy (“Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113,” 1973). Although the argument was based on the fact that a fetus cannot survive outside the mother’s body before the 24th week of gestation, the arguments could benefit from an inclusion of specific medical facts.
The Joe vs. Wade decision also raises questions as it does not address pregnancies with complications that will result in a birth of a physically or intellectually challenged child or one unable to survive. Does termination after the first trimester, in this case, fall under the substantive due process? Should prenatal testing be considered as the right to privacy of the woman?
The article by Jessica Glenza considers the potential repercussions of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The author argues that the decision under consideration is based on the substantive due process – the right to life, privacy, and liberty (Glenza, 2021). The rejection of Roe vs. Wade can lead to other decisions, such as protecting gay rights, being overturned as they are founded on the right to substantive due process. However, the article does not delineate how the dismantling of Roe vs. Wade will affect other vital Supreme Court decisions.
As the last article mentions the protection of gay rights and contraception, several questions can be argued: Should they be considered the right to privacy or argued to fall under the right to liberty? Should “history of tradition” be deemed a substantial argument for repealing Roe vs. Wade?
References
Friedersdorf, C. (2020). How to protect civil liberties in a pandemic. The Atlantic. Web.
Glenza, J. (2021). How dismantling Roe V Wade could imperil other ‘core, basic human rights’. The Guardian. Web.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. (1973). Justia Law. Web.