Due Process and Roe v. Wade

[ParanoiA]

This is not a thread to argue about Roe v Wade, rather just trying to understand the logic here behind the decision in Roe V Wade.

 

I'm not really understanding the relationship between privacy and due process of law. These terms get tossed around a bunch, but when it comes down to it, I have a tenuous understanding of it, at best.

 

(Does this not imply that with due process, then you can violate privacy and thereby stop an abortion?)

 

And what exactly are they referring to with "privacy"? The knowledge of their pregnancy to begin with? Or physical violation? I'm unsure what component is a violation of privacy - or exactly what privacy was being violated.

 

According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[/b']. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.

 

Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights, instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property

 

I read that and immediately think "This sounds like an argument to stop the government from making me get an abortion". I'm not making the connection here.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping some of you have been all through this and can enlighten me.

[swansont]

IANAL, and this is a completely naive observation (from a legal aspect) but I believe it's about whether the government has a right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. To make such a pronouncement is an invasion of privacy.

[ParanoiA]

IANAL, and this is a completely naive observation (from a legal aspect) but I believe it's about whether the government has a right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. To make such a pronouncement is an invasion of privacy.

 

That would make sense, and that's also how I'm kind of interpreting it. But how does "due process" relate then? That implies that they could invade your privacy as long as they press charges ( like attempted murder perhaps ) and use the "process" of the legal system.

 

Maybe my hang up has to do with due process more than anything else. I've always considered criminals having been duely processed resulting in "stripping their rights". I'm not aware of any due process that results in "invading their privacy". Maybe they're one in the same? Or am I way off here?