Monday, March 19, 2012

Santorum doesn't believe in the right of privacy

Privacy is something we all take for granted.  We expect privacy in our personal affairs; our home life, in our thoughts, what we do and where we go.  The conversations that we have with our spouses, religious leaders and doctors we all expect to be private.  There are exceptions of course, as no right is absolute.

Privacy is the right to think, know, collect, research and act without the community, at will, knowing.  The only reason the community has any reasonable responsibility to violate an individual’s right of privacy; of course, any right; is by an investigation by the executive branch of the government.  If they determine that a crime has taken place, then they present the evidence to the judicial branch.  At that point, if a judge agrees, a search warrant can be issued for the search of your personal items and your person, if necessary.

But, again for clarity, privacy can be violated only after a crime is suspected and a judge has authorized the search.
The word privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Some believe that the right is implied in some passages related to other rights.  The Fourth Amendment says that the government needs a warrant authorized by a judge to search your personal items.  That would imply that you have a right to privacy, otherwise, why need a warrant?  The Constitution in the Fifth Amendment states that you can’t be a witness against yourself, otherwise that would be an invasion of what you do or think, again, a privacy issue. 

Others say that the right to privacy is in the Ninth and Tenth amendment.  Essentially, the two amendments collectively state that we didn’t give the right of privacy to the community along with a many other un-numerated rights. 
If you believe that since the word privacy is not in the Constitution and that no reading of the document can be interpreted to mean that privacy is implied then you agree with Senator Rick Santorum, the prudential candidate.  He believes that there is no right to privacy because the word itself is not mentioned.  Santorum believes that privacy is not something we hold even if it isn’t, expressed or implied, in the Constitution.

Without a right of privacy, your private life could be invaded at will, with mere legislative action.  Your confessions with your religious leader could be made public record.  All your emails could be read.  The library books you check out at the library could be reviewed by anyone, for any reason, if the legislation enacted such a law.  With no right to privacy, your personal conversations and actions with your spouse and doctor could be open to the public.
But, would any of us, including those that may think Santorum is correct, think it okay to be followed around when there is no reason that we have committed a crime?

To a specific point about privacy, in Mississippi, they want to require doctors to violate their patient’s body privacy, without a warrant or judicial review, with a vaginal probe when a woman requests a legal procedure.  If a woman is requesting an abortion and a heartbeat can’t be detected with a standard ultra-sound, the attending physician will be required by the proposed law to use a vaginal probe to search for a heartbeat.  There is no medical reason for this procedure.  The woman has a right to visit a doctor and not lose her right of privacy.  Finally, a crime is not being committed – the police haven’t investigated and a judge has not authorized a search to search her body.          
So, how is it that this can be done?  The reason is simple; it is unreasonable and Unconstitutional response to a legal act, an abortion.  This is continuing in many states.  While in this case it is Mississippi, it is an invasion of privacy, something that Santorum thinks is not in the Constitution. 

Be careful.  If you lose one right based on the bigger issue of privacy, you will begin to lose it on all your rights.
-----