This article discusses how the ruling on laws about abortions can impact other rights rooted in privacy. These rights include gay rights, contraceptives, marriage, and others not written in the constitution but vested in the human race because people are human (Glenza). The court ruling seems to undermine these inalienable rights and make them equal to constitutional rights that need to be written in-laws to be granted.
Discussing the issue of abortion, the author seems to forget that there are discrepancies in the abortion laws across the states. Hence, the abortion issue has long been controversial, unlike those rights that are considered inalienable. The rights to life to marriage have not been debated since they are the fundamental rights of any human. Abortion, on the other hand, is a highly controversial issue and, as such, can not be equal to basic human rights. Hence, the parallels the author draws cannot be called reasonable.
For me, this article raises the question of how people should determine what rights should be guaranteed by the constitution and what rights are core rights from birth. In the given example, the line of demarcation does not seem to be clearly stated. The article’s second question is on what grounds rights can be refuted and what laws can serve to undermine people’s freedom.
Reference
Glenza, J. (2021) How dismantling Roe v Wade could imperil other ‘core’, basic human rights. The Guardian.