Fluent Essays

The Bill of Rights provides protection from unreasonable and arbitrary governmental interference for several civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press. If you were able to add an additional freedom to the Bill of Rights, what would it be? Explain your choice. POL 2301, United States Government 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 2. Identify the distinctive attributes of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 2.1 Define civil liberties and civil rights. 2.2 Discuss landmark Supreme Court cases and laws related to civil rights and civil liberties. 2.3 Identify the civil rights and liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. 2.4 Describe the meaning of equal treatment. 2.5 Summarize the movements in the United States to achieve equal rights. Course/Unit Learning Outcomes Learning Activity 2.1 Unit Lesson Chapter 4, pp. 109–148 Chapter 5, pp. 155–194 Unit III Assessment 2.2 Unit Lesson Chapter 4, pp. 109–148 Chapter 5, pp. 155–194 Unit III Assessment 2.3 Unit Lesson Chapter 4, pp. 109–148 Chapter 5, pp. 155–194 Unit III Assessment 2.4 Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 155–194 Unit III Assessment 2.5 Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 155–194 Unit III Assessment Required Unit Resources In order to access the following resources, click the links below. Throughout this course, you will be provided with sections of text from the online textbook American Government 2e. You may be tested on your knowledge and understanding of the material presented in the textbook as well as the information presented in the unit lesson. Chapter 4: Civil Liberties, pp. 109–148 Chapter 5: Civil Rights, pp. 155–194 Unit Lesson The civil liberties and civil rights established in the Bill of Rights provide the foundation of American individual freedom and protection from arbitrary government intervention in the lives of citizens. These guarantees establish the groundwork for full engagement in the political and civil life of our society. Following the Enlightenment, philosophers such as John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the architects of American democracy, held that the individual rights and liberties were inherent in human UNIT III STUDY GUIDE Civil Rights and Civil Liberties https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834682_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834683_1 POL 2301, United States Government 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title beings—not derived from government. They further contended that a key function of government was to protect rights and liberties. Authored by James Madison, the Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Originally, 12 amendments were proposed by Congress to the state legislatures; however, only 10 were ratified. On December 15, 1791, after 2 years of debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted. The Bill of Rights, along with other founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, are on display in the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C. Take a closer look at the Bill of Rights by visiting “The Bill of Rights” webpage, which is hosted by the U.S. National Archive and Records Administration. The Rotunda at the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C., is where the Bill of Rights and other founding documents are housed. They are displayed around the Rotunda in specially designed cases to help preserve the aging documents. (National Archives Museum, n.d.) https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights POL 2301, United States Government 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title In this lesson, we will examine civil liberties and civil rights through two case studies. The first focuses on a civil liberty—the right to privacy. While not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, citizen demands for privacy rights date back to the country’s founding. The second case study centers on a more contemporary controversy— equal access to education. Civil liberties are the freedoms that individuals are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, national and state laws, and judicial interpretations. They guarantee citizens’ freedom to engage in certain actions such as speech or journalism. At the same time, these guarantees place limits on what types of actions the government can restrain and to what degree the government can restrain the actions of citizens. There are two broad categories of civil liberties: personal freedoms and rights of the accused. They include the rights to free speech and a free press, the right to privacy, the right to peaceably assemble, the free exercise of religion, the rights of criminal defendants such as due process and protection against self- incrimination or double jeopardy, and the rights to a jury trial and council. Civil rights guarantee freedom from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by the government. The government is required to ensure citizens receive equal treatment in a variety of settings such as employment, education, housing, and access to public facilities regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, disability, and other legally protected characteristics (Krutz, 2019). In some cases, civil rights and civil liberties issues remain narrowly focused over time while others broaden and diversify. In this unit’s case studies, we will examine controversies associated with both civil liberties and civil rights. In particular, this lesson illustrates some of the key debates over citizens’ freedom from excessive government intrusion into their private lives and the right of all citizens to have equal access to education. Case Study I: Privacy Rights In the 21st century, privacy is often considered to be one of the most important rights held by American citizens; however, there is no one explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution or the amendments. Rather, privacy is rooted in law, judicial interpretation, and a compilation of constitutional amendments (i.e., the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth) (Gifis, 2016). The right to privacy has been carved out of existing amendments and created by laws and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of individual rights and liberties. (McLeod-Simmons, 2018) POL 2301, United States Government 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title An alternate version of the infographic above is provided using assistive technologies. https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834622_1 POL 2301, United States Government 5 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Following the legal tradition championed by Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, Harvard-educated Boston attorney Samuel D. Warren and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis aptly defined privacy in their 1890 seminal work “The Right of Privacy” as “the right to be left alone” (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, p. 205). However, this idea that government should leave individuals undisturbed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise has expanded over the past 130 years in ways that these early constitutional scholars could not have imagined. In today’s world, privacy rights extend into numerous areas of modern life—from communications to reproduction. Privacy Rights Today, privacy rights can be categorized into three key areas, which are discussed below. Personal Data Privacy Constitutional basis: Drawing from the protections in the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, the right to keep sensitive information private includes medical records, educational records, and financial reports collected by both the government and the private sector. Defined: The ownership of private information is a legally complex issue since personal data is often owned, at least in part, by several parties. For example, ownership or control over a person’s medical records can be shared by the patient’s family if an information release is signed, or the patient is a minor. Ownership may also be shared by a physician’s office or hospital; medical labs; pharmacies; insurance companies; and state and federal government agencies if Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or infectious diseases are involved. Further, that ownership may be shared by Internet service providers through which medical information about a patient is shared and pharmaceutical companies (McCarthy, 2018). Law: While there is no single federal data protection statute, there are several landmark statutes that provide privacy protections for personal data. Review the following landmark privacy statutes by clicking the links below.  Review the Privacy Act of 1974 webpage to learn more about the legislation.  Learn more about Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) by accessing the “Health Information Privacy” webpage.  Review the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) webpage to learn more about the FERPA legislation. Physical Privacy Constitutional basis: The Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments serve as a foundation for physical privacy, which is an individual’s right over his or her physical person, including reproductive rights and education pertaining to physical privacy, mandatory drug testing, and physical searches. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (Harris & Ewing, 1916) Boston attorney Samuel D. Warren (Notman, 1875) https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974 https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html POL 2301, United States Government 6 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Defined: Reproductive rights refer to an individual’s right to determine when and if to reproduce, to use contraceptives, to terminate a pregnancy, and to have access to reproductive health services and education (FindLaw, n.d.). Cases: There have been several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that establish a right to privacy and define privacy in terms of reproductive rights. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) established a right to use contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade (1973) established the right to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental right to a woman’s life and future (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], n.d.-b). In order to access the following video, click the link below. Watch the news announcement given by Walter Cronkite on CBS News of the Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court decision in this video On This Day: Supreme Court Legalizes Abortion. The video transcript is also available at the link above. Later, U.S. Supreme Court cases held that federal funds could be used to terminate a pregnancy even if the life of the mother was not at risk, Harris v. McRae (1980). However, the 1989 high court decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services took a step away from reproductive privacy by restricting late-term abortions, and Rust v. Sullivan (1991) upheld a gag order barring abortion counseling by and referrals to family planning programs that receive federal funds. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the core principles of Roe v. Wade but slightly weakened it. However, the Court made substantial inroads into striking down Roe in the 2007 Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007) decision when it upheld the federal ban on abortion imposed by the Partial Birth Abortion Act (2003) and in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2007) where the court declared partial birth abortions unconstitutional. In the recent 2016 case Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law restricting women access to abortion by reducing the number of abortion clinics in the state (Liptak, 2016). In order to access the following video, click the link below. Watch the news coverage by C-SPAN in the video Plaintiff Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Abortion Restrictions. The transcript for the video Plaintiff Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Abortion Restrictions is also available. See how your state ranks in the protection of reproductive rights by engaging with the following interactive map from the Status of Women in the States website, which can be accessed by clicking the link below. Reproductive Rights Interactive Map (Germanovich, n.d.) (Germanovich, n.d.) https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://www.c-span.org/video/?411779-104/plaintiff-reaction-supreme-court-ruling-texas-abortion-restrictions https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://www.c-span.org/video/?411779-104/plaintiff-reaction-supreme-court-ruling-texas-abortion-restrictions https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://www.c-span.org/video/?411779-104/plaintiff-reaction-supreme-court-ruling-texas-abortion-restrictions https://www.c-span.org/video/?411779-104/plaintiff-reaction-supreme-court-ruling-texas-abortion-restrictions https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834623_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834623_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124834623_1 https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/ https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://c24.page/8xcdvgabg8x4zhvg4yae9w4e9a https://www.c-span.org/video/?411779-104/plaintiff-reaction-supreme-court-ruling-texas-abortion-restrictions POL 2301, United States Government 7 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Communications Privacy Constitutional basis: Based chiefly on the Fourth Amendment but also on the First and Third Amendments, the right to communications privacy includes telephone calls, cell phone calls, emails, and social media postings. Privacy violations can take the form of warranted or warrantless electronic surveillance and use of communication records. Defined: Electronic surveillance is the use of an electronic or mechanical device to obtain the information from an electronic communication. The communication is not acquired with the consent of the individual(s) under surveillance, and the individual(s) under surveillance has the reasonable expectation of privacy. Examples of electronic surveillance include wiretapping, geolocation tracking (i.e., geotracking), videotaping, datamining, and social media mapping (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Cases and law: In the case Olmstead v. United States (1928), the U.S. Supreme Court held that electronic eavesdropping by the government did not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures since the interception did not occur through an actual intrusion into a person’s home. The court also contended that conversations were not physical objects that are subject to being seized. It was not until almost 4 decades later in Katz v. United States (1967) that the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment offers protection to an individual anywhere that the individual has a reasonable expectation for privacy. As technology changed, the need for clarity in the meaning of surveillance and privacy emerged. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which defined electronic surveillance. The High Court also began to revise its conception of electronic surveillance and privacy. In the Kyllo v. United States (2001) decision, the Supreme Court addressed the use of electronic surveillance that did not require a physical entrance into a person’s home. The Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment search did not require an actual physical entrance into a person’s home if information was gathered that would not have been obtained without the entrance (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The events of September 11, 2001, changed the nature of electronic surveillance. While warrantless searches and surveillance had always been permitted, they were legal only under limited circumstances; however, following 9/11, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, which expanded the authority of government to engage in searches and surveillance, including warrantless searches without probable cause; access to third-party records, such as cellphone records held by a service provider; and the collection of information pertaining to the origins and destination of communications rather than just the content of the communication (ACLU, n.d.-a). Electronic surveillance is used in many public spaces to deter crime; however, it also raises privacy issues. (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], 2013; McLeod-Simmons, 2019b; XoMEoX, 2017) POL 2301, United States Government 8 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title In order to access the following video, click the link below. Watch the History Channel’s explanation of the USA PATRIOT Act by watching the video Here’s Why the PATRIOT Act Is So Controversial. The video transcript is also available at the link above. In the case Carpenter v. United States (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed several of these issues. The court held that the government needs a warrant to access an individual’s cellphone location history (geo- tracking). The High Court also ruled that obtaining geo-tracking information constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and requires a probable cause warrant. Case Study II: Equal Treatment In today’s political landscape, laws and court decisions actively work to ensure equal treatment under the law. There are numerous legislative and judicial protections to ensure the civil rights of all citizens. However, this has not always been the case. Since the inception of the United States, there have been debates and battles over how individuals should be treated by the government and by private entities. Women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other disenfranchised groups have sought freedom from discrimination and equal treatment under the law. In this second case study, we will examine one of these civil rights movements in which the goal was to desegregate public schools. While the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, discrimination against racial minorities continued throughout much of the United States after the Civil War. Jim Crow laws, predominately in Southern states, institutionalized racial discrimination. Poll taxes, literacy tests, white primaries, threats of violence, and violence enforced racial discrimination, effectively disenfranchising black citizens from the post-Reconstruction period through the 1960s and beyond. Legal segregation separated the races in public spaces such as public transportation, restaurants, and schools. This separation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) when it established the separate but equal doctrine as consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause (Krutz, 2019). Pictured is a 1935 poll tax receipt from St. Francis County, Arkansas. Poll taxes were used to prevent Blacks from voting. The $1 poll tax is equivalent to $7.50 today. (Desilver, 2014; McLeod-Simmons, 2019b) (Germanovich, n.d.) https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm https://c24.page/bf4zbxxd5kkmeef8tc87jerxwm POL 2301, United States Government 9 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title In 1952, the Plessy ruling, as applied to segregated public education, was challenged in a class action suit combining five cases from Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware, and the District of Columbia under the title Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. While it was not the first case attempting to dismantle segregation, it was one of the successful ones. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund sponsored the case with a young attorney from Baltimore, Maryland, Thurgood Marshall, who served as lead counsel. The case raised several legal issues, but the most important was its challenge to the separate but equal doctrine. Marshall argued that separate school systems for Black and White children were inherently unequal and, therefore, were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It took 2 years for the court to hear the case and render a decision. With Earl Warren sitting as Chief Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision on May 11, 1954, with Warren stating that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [1], 1954). In a complete reversal of Plessy, which contended that the Fourteenth Amendment supported the separate but equal doctrine, the Warren Court unanimously held that the segregation of children in public schools based on race deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal. Anticipating that the ruling would meet with opposition, the Supreme Court delayed providing direction for how the government should implement the decision. The Supreme Court sought input from the attorneys general of all states that permitted segregated schools, asking them to submit recommendations on how to implement desegregation. After holding a series of additional hearings on how best to construct a plan for desegregating American schools, on May 31, 1955, the Justices handed down a blueprint for how desegregation was to proceed, namely with all deliberate speed (Brown v. Board of Education [2], 1955, para. 1). The Brown decisions were key to starting the process of desegregating public schools in the United States. But integration would prove to be a long, difficult, and dangerous road that would include additional court rulings and laws. A key piece of legislation was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a sweeping piece of legislation that aimed at ending discrimination based on color, race, religion, and national origin. But even after years of public debate and discord, additional court rulings, and state and federal laws, all schools in the United States are still not fully integrated even today. In order to access the following resource, click the link below. View an interactive map of districts with open desegregation orders as late as 2014 at the ProPublica webpage A National Survey of School Desegregation Orders (Qiu & Hannah- Jones, 2014; Vugenfirer, n.d.). Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (Okamoto, 1967) Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren (Dijon, 2014) https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/desegregation-orders POL 2301, United States Government 10 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title In order to access the following activity, click the link below to explore the milestones of desegregation. Interactive Activity 3.1: Desegregation Timeline Click here to access the PDF version of Interactive Activity 3.1: Milestones to the Revolution. Where We Are Today Every citizen in the United States has access to education in mostly integrated schools. Only about 13\% of grade school students attend schools that are not integrated (Meckler, 2019). However, the more urban the area, the more segregated schools tend to be. To some extent, this is due to income. Students from wealthier families with parents who are better educated tend to live in more suburban areas. However, it is also a result of desegregation orders being lifted by the federal courts. As mandatory integration plans, including busing, are dismantled, segregation has reemerged in some areas with Black and Hispanic students attending schools that lack diversity (Rabinowitz et al., 2019). Why is this important? Predominately minority schools and school districts tend to pay teachers less and employ less experienced teachers. This can mean that course offerings tend to be less challenging (e.g., less science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] curriculum). It also means that minority students take fewer advanced placement courses and have less access to gifted programs (Waldman & Green, 2018). Access the link below to view an interactive map that shows how your local school rates with racial equality in advanced placement and gifted programs. This now brings us back to the starting point of this case study and Justice Thurgood Marshall’s early concern over equal access for all children to an equal educational opportunity. In the first Brown decision (1954), Marshall remarked: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, para. 14) In order to access the following resource, click the link below. View an interactive map that displays the likeliness of Black students to be placed in gifted programs as compared to White students at the ProPublica webpage Miseducation: Is There Racial Inequality at Your School? (Groeger et al., 2018; Vugenfirer, n.d.). References American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.-a). Surveillance under the USA/PATRIOT Act. https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.-b). Timeline of important reproductive freedom cases decided by the Supreme Court. https://www.aclu.org/other/timeline-important-reproductive-freedom-cases-decided- supreme-court (Chernetskaya, n.d.) https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-125045827_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-125045827_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-125045827_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124835179_1 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-124835179_1 https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/ https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/ https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-125045827_1 POL 2301, United States Government 11 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/#tab-opinion-1940809 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940- 1955/347us483 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940- 1955/349us294 Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (6th Cir. 2018). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. (2013). Big Data [Image]. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DARPA_Big_Data.jpg Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-17 FindLaw. (n.d.). What are reproductive rights? https://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/what-are- reproductive-rights-.html Germanovich, Y. (n.d.). Simple video camera vector icon [Photograph]. https://www.dreamstime.com/simple- video-camera-flat-pictogram-icon-vector-image138944656 Gifis, S. H. (2016). Dictionary of legal terms: Definitions and explanations for non-lawyers. Barron’s Educational Series. Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-380 Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., 550 U.S. 124 (2007). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1382 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496 Groeger, L. V., Waldman, A., & Eads, D. (2018, October 16). Miseducation: Is there inequality at your school? ProPublica. https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/ Harris & Ewing. (1916). Louis Brandeis, head-and-shoulders studio portrait, facing front [Photograph]. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004673443/ Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-1268 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35 Krutz, G. (2019, February 21). American government 2e (S. Waskiewicz, Ed.). OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/american-government-2e Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Electronic surveillance. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance Liptak, A. (2016, June 27). Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion restrictions. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html McCarthy, M. (2018, November 2). Privacy is not a property right in personal …