“The right to privacy that forms the basis of Roe is the same right to privacy that protects…the right to marry the person you love…”
Vice President Kamala Harris
[Marriage:] the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Merriam-Webster
Marriage, as a state recognized by law, is an inherently public institution.
Who knew that the right to privacy protects the right to participate in a public institution?
Marriage is actually three (at least) distinct things under one umbrella:
1) Marriage is a *social* institution going back before written history, fairly similar across all human cultures in (at least from a distance. Some norms and practices vary).
2) Marriage is, in Abrahamic religions, a religious sacrament of some degree.
3) Based on *both* one and two, marriage is the registration of that institution or sacrement with the secular authority to standardized things like inheritance, and later on taxation etc.
You will note that *all three* of those are public facing. A private marriage isn’s a marriage, it’s just a personal commitment…Which is a fine and essential thing, but it works better when you publicly commit.
Harris is an idiot.
If there was actually *any* privacy protected by Roe, it FIRST would have been medical privacy, and would have *significantly* limited the sort of medical data that the state *DEMANDS* that we provide it, and it would have made things like the FDA unconstitutional. After all, if The State not only can’t get in the room with a woman and her doctor concerning a surgical procedure like abortion, how can they stop a doctor from prescribing marijuana, or using psilocybin mushrooms as part of psychotherapy.
Indeed, to all of that.