SkipCaptcha
86
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + +
Association with Roe v. Wade
:I have thought that this intro is a little abrupt, but I don't know much on the subject. I'm not opposed to such a change, but I'd want someone more knowledgeable to weigh in. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
:I have thought that this intro is a little abrupt, but I don't know much on the subject. I'm not opposed to such a change, but I'd want someone more knowledgeable to weigh in. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:53, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
:(Thx. for adding my attribution.)
:Looking at the history of this, it's clear that the original intent was to describe Right to Privacy under the Constitution, which (as mentioned above) is cited in what used to be called the "penumbra decisions", with Griswold being generally associated with this line of legal reasoning. This seems to be a reasonable approach, because "Right to Privacy" is tied to Roe v. Wade, which is generally regarded as part of the "penumbra decisions" (and perhaps the last; I can't think of a later decision described as such). In the meantime, the "Statutory Law" section should be moved below the discussions and criticisms of the Supreme Court case law. --[[User:Goldwatergrrl|Goldwatergrrl]]