Make the right-wingers think about privacy rights, too.

[Ocelot II]

They, or at least many of them, are against abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, and/or interracial marriage, all of which, at least until now, have been protected as aspects of a right to privacy that is not specifically listed in the Constitution. Alito's lame distinctions notwithstanding, a right to privacy does not exist according to the the Supreme Court's majority originalists. That's fine with the right-wingers because they don't think people should be entitled to privacy with respect to things (mainly sex-related things, since the RW is disturbingly hung up on sex) they do in their homes.

All righty, then. If the government can intrude on some of the things we do in our homes, is there any limit to the aspects of our personal lives that can be controlled, such as child-rearing? The RW hates the so-called nanny state, meaning any regulation that inconveniences them (e.g., seat belts, face masks during pandemics), but what will happen to their privacy, along with ours, if the Supreme Court decides once and for all that there is no protected right to privacy anywhere, at all. You think the gummint is all up in your bidness now, MAGAts? Just you wait.

[Wounded Bear]

1. If there are no privacy rights with respect to women's health...

there should be no privacy rights with respect to finances and taxes.

[sanatanadharma]

6. Also no right to privacy about how many guns you have

Constitution gives one the right to have guns, but no right to privacy about who has them, nor how many.

The idea that the 2nd A gives rights beyond simply keeping and bearing arms is inferred based on right to privacy, not the words.
It takes some 3rd level self-deception to make the word "militia" mean nobody can know about my arsenal.

It seems to me that the vaulted US 'right to privacy' is an old fiction whose time is up.

[elleng]

2. ABSOLUTELY!

No contraception, marry only matching skin color, marry only same 'g-d.'

[TreasonousBastard]

3. So, no protected privacy in tax reporting, corporate ownership...

or any of the other things that make life livable for some, profitable for some, and miserable for the rest of us.

[Wounded Bear]

8. And no privacy in fucking political donations!

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Definitely!

[FM123]

4. Yes.

How will they think about privacy rights when/if the fanatic RW'ers decide to view (or investigate) their miscarriages and stillborn births as "unlawful" deaths like they do about abortions....

[Pobeka]

5. You're asking them to have a realistic vision of the future.

Not their stong suit...

[fierywoman]

7. Margaret Atwood (via Frederick Woodruff):

here’s a statement from author Margaret Atwood cobbled from an interview she gave back in 2017. Please set this to needlepoint and hang it in your living room:

“I’m waiting for the first lawsuit. I’m waiting, you know, for the lawsuit in which the family of the dead woman sues the state...And I’m also waiting for a lawsuit that says if you force me to have children I cannot afford, you should pay for the whole process. They should pay for my prenatal care. They should pay for my, otherwise, very expensive delivery. You should pay for my health insurance. You should pay for the upkeep of this child after it is born. That’s where the concern seems to cut off with these people. Once you take your first breath, it’s out the window with you. And, it is really a form of slavery to force women to have children that they cannot afford and then to say that they have to raise them...People have to decide what kind of world they want to live in. Are we in favor of forced childbirth? Because that’s the world that we are going to get if we shut down reproductive rights. Right to life is one way of putting it. Forced childbirth is another way.”