Is Sexual Congress a Constitutional Right?
Rights refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without interference by others – or interfering with the same rights of others.
Is having sex a constitutionally protected right?
What about abortion? Is it a “right”?
There is no doubt that the advent of birth control that operates via chemical suppression of natural occurring procreative cycles has significantly altered the outlook on sex because effective contraception offered all the carnal pleasures of the act without the consequences – a pregnancy.
The Supreme Court found a right to contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Following that logic, if birth control is a right and it is used to prevent the consequences of sex, then sex must also be a right.
If sex free of consequences is a right, and rights cannot be denied, how can there be rape – because we certainly can’t go around preventing people from exercising their rights, not can we?
Don’t think I’m arguing for rape, I’m just extending the “logic”.
Along those lines, there now are people, many of whom are on the consequence free/abortions are groovy sex train, who have lived their entire lives during this time when an altered form of human biology is considered the “norm”.
The fact is the altered form of human roles is not the norm because until the advent of the “pill” in 1960 and its common usage in the ensuing decades, the act of sex was understood to be a procreative and consequential, not merely an act of responsibility free sensual pleasure. Intercourse was understood to be procreative, not just recreative. That’s why means of contraception were invented.
Perhaps that is a reason that abortion is seen as socially acceptable, pregnancy has been redefined as a sickness to be cured or treated, not the creation of a person - and since sex is a right, there must be an offramp if a pregnancy occurs - much to our disgrace, abortion fits the bill.
I know Schumer’s Roe “codification” bill was just a political stunt. He knew there were never going to be sixty votes for cloture, so he attempted to do what in football is called a “double move”. He gave the Democrats a shield against their radical abortion supporting base and he put the GOP in the position of opposing the right of a woman to privacy and choice.
If you read the actual bill, you know these two things will only be achieved inside their party because the bill Schumer put on the floor includes:
Elective abortions legal across the entire country for all nine months of pregnancy (up until the baby is “crowning”,
Allowing "mental health" loopholes that eliminate any real limitations (because the term “health” is not defined and can mean virtually anything),
Eliminating virtually all existing state-level restrictions, including:
Parental approval and notification laws
Laws banning sex-selective abortions
Laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period prior to obtaining an abortion
Laws requiring that abortionists inform women of alternatives to abortion
Gutting conscience protections for healthcare workers who don't want to participate in abortions,
Allowing non-doctors to facilitate the abortions,
Potentially forcing taxpayers to finance all of it.
Keep in mind that 49 Democrat Senators voted for this.
This is Chinese Communist Party territory and the media message incessantly presented that this is just "codifying Roe" is a horrifically deceptive lie, it is a massive federal overreach to expand abortion and force it on every person in the nation.
It is important to note that a version of this same bill was passed through the House with 218 Democrat votes. Only one Democrat resisted the Satanic grip of Nancy Pelosi.
No Republicans in the Senate or the House voted for these bills.
It is also important to note that, at the state level, bills have already been introduced in California and Maryland that would permit abortion up to 28 days AFTER live birth.
Schumer is from New York. Pelosi is from California.
If Roe is overturned, I have no doubt that both New York and California will pass state level laws that will look a lot like these bills.
These are the same people who will put a doctor in jail for sexually abusing athletes (which should have happened years ago) and yet pass laws allowing chicks with a dicks (transgender males) to parade around in girls high school and college dressing rooms.
If it seems I am off on a tangent from where this started – questioning whether sex is a “right” – but I want to bring it back around to that point.
Rights are typically defined as the moral responsibilities people have to one another, they refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without interference by others – or interfering with the same rights of others.
While society prohibits sexual intercourse with and between minor children and members of classes of people to whom such an act is damaging to them in some way, there are, of course, an infinite number of actions conducted daily by free people that are not specific rights, per se. They are extensions of living in a free society and just generally accepted in the daily course of their normal lives.
Abortion most certainly interferes with the rights of “others” but more than that, a right cannot rest upon the direct and complete erasure of the rights of another, especially at the cost of the life of another human being.
OK, now that we have established that having sex is an activity but not a right, how, in any definition, can abortion be classified as a “right”?
In Canada, where we have no rights except at the whim of government, there are NO rules regarding abortion. None. There are guidelines suggested, but not enforced. You should see the regulations one must follow simply to build a railing on a residential patio. Everything is regulated - except abortions. However we have SJWs parading around and demanding housing for all, as ‘housing is a right’. Of course we have left wing politicians pushing for $20 an hour minimum wage, since $15 turned out not to be enough when there is rampant inflation. Since ‘a living wage’ is a right. Right to life? Not so much.