Friday, April 27, 2018
Let’s briefly examine the Conservatives view that our inalienable Fundamental Rights may be infringed by our government monopoly so long as it is in support of morality issues. Conservatives may accomplish this task either by elevating moralistic Fundamental Rights (traditional marriage or procreation) or through legislation. For instance, laws that prohibit gambling, drinking, drugs, and sex. I am not saying all moralistic laws are wrong and uncalled for (crime that violates the rights of others must be enforced), but when a government monopoly makes those decisions, there will be errors in judgement and enforcement. In 1986 the Court upheld Georgia anti-sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. Georgia did not enforce the law, nor did most states with anti-sodomy laws. Bowers was originally charged for violating the statute but the chargers were dismissed. One reason these laws are unenforceable is because they are generally done in private. Any sexual act in public (sodomy or not) would be a criminal act: lewd or offensive behavior. My point is that moral conservatives can go overboard with legislation that can infringe on individual rights including the freedom of contract between married couples to have sexual relations in any matter they want in private. Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. However, the Court elevated sodomy as a Fundamental Right to do so. This too was wrong, sodomy is a right between consenting adults but it is not a Fundamental Right. In both cases, the Court of our monopolized government erred. One final example is marijuana laws. I am against marijuana and voted against it. But it was decided by the people of my state and it should be a decision made by each state on how to enforce and regulate marijuana use. The federal government monopoly should be more concerned with more dangerous and addictive drugs that make it into the United States. Sure, I have an opinion about sodomy and marijuana and neither is something I would promote. But the United States is a democracy and not a tyranny to force or coerce others into our way of thinking. Morality teachings are the job of the family or support groups like schools, churches, or other organizations within the community. Forced and coercive morality teachings should not be the job of the government. Of course, families may fail to teach their children proper morality goals, but that mistake is far less intrusive than when the government fails to enforce morality laws properly: Innocent people will be jailed and have their rights violated. Remember, liberals are not completely free from “morality” enforcement abuse. They have placed a war on cigarette smokers and manufacturers as well as producers of sugar products to name a few. Finally, let’s briefly examine the flaws in the Liberal view of social justice or what they believe should be a fundamental right: Distribution Justice (socialism). Distribution justice means our government monopoly has the right to forcibly or coercively take property from one citizen and give it another. Of course the Fifth Amendment says differently. The Fifth Amendment says that government can take property only for public reasons and with just compensation. Distribution justice is quite different and obviously violates many inalienable Fundamental Rights such as the right to property and the freedom of contract. There are many specific issues with Distribution Justice. First, who makes the decisions and defines what Distribution Justice actually means (power principle discussed earlier). We have seen and heard many different definitions and a wide variety laws, but it never seems to be enough to satisfy liberals. Distribution justice is a continually moving target whose main objective is to violate the rights of hard working law abiding citizens. Secondly, distribution justice suffers from the partiality principle discussed earlier. Those receiving benefits will be partial to their cause and demand bigger payments and those giving benefits will be partial to their cause and want to limit payments. This leads to class warfare and leads to warrantless claims of the “filthy rich” and “deadbeats”. The bottom line is distribution justice divides Americans. Part of the reason for this is the third issue with distribution justice and that is the interest principle. Most people do not have a problem giving to local causes that help people they know or family members. On the other hand, most people do not want to give blindly to strangers they do not know since they have no interest in their situation. Think of it this way, if a family member dies it hits us hard, but if a typhoon killed thousands of people in Japan we probably will not lose a minute of sleep (even if we give to charities to help those affected). Fourth there will be enforcement errors and abuse when a government monopoly can coercively use force or even violence to distribute wealth. There will undoubtably be innocent people fined and jailed (justice is not perfect) meaning laws will be incorrectly applied. And can anyone deny that government will misuse the massive amounts of data it obtains to implement any distribution scheme. For instance, ObamaCare web sites were not properly secure leaving millions of people vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. Inevitably distributive justice creates chaos and fraud because both sides of the equation will hire lawyers and lobbying firms to win “more rights” for their clients. Distribution justice simply does not work on a very large scale especially when it is enforced by government monopolies (IRS) that use coercion and force to violate the inalienable rights of law abiding citizens for the benefit of strangers. Using coercion instead of consent and power instead of rights accomplishes resentment, jealousy, and overall chaos. In summary, Fundamental Rights should be inalienable rights or property or contract related. Elevating too many Fundamental Rights creates conflict and chaos in the justice system. A Fundamental Right is common and beneficial to all individuals and therefore Fundamental Rights elevated by the Court should not set off bitterness, resentment, and argument. Finally, our monopolized government should do a better job protecting our Fundamental Rights and rights in general.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
1. Cleveland (0-16) — Sam Darnold, QB, USC, So. 2. N.Y. Giants (3-13) — Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn St., Jr. 3. N.Y. Jets from Indianapolis (4-12) — Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA, Jr. 4. Cleveland from Houston (4-12) — Bradley Chubb, DE, NC State, Sr. 5. Denver (5-11) — Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame, Sr. 6. Indianapolis from N.Y. Jets (5-11) — Denzel Ward, CB, Ohio St., Jr. 7. Tampa Bay (5-11) — Minkah Fitzpatrick, DB, Alabama, Jr. 8. Chicago (5-11) — Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech, Jr. 9. San Francisco (6-10) — Derwin James, SS, Florida St., So. 10. Oakland (6-10) — Vita Vea, DT, Washington, Jr. 11. Miami (6-10) — Baker Mayfield, QB, Oklahoma, Sr. 12. Buffalo from Cincinnati (7-9) — Josh Allen, QB, Wyoming, Jr. 13. Washington (7-9) — Roquan Smith, ILB, Georgia, Jr. 14. Green Bay (7-9) — Jaire Alexander, CB, Louisville, Jr. 15. Arizona (8-8) — Connor Williams, OT, Texas, Jr. 16. Baltimore (9-7) — Mike McGlinchey, OT, Notre Dame, Sr. 17. L.A. Chargers (9-7) — Da’Ron Payne, DT, Alabama, Jr. 18. Seattle (9-7) — Marcus Davenport, DE, Texas-San Antonio, Sr. 19. Dallas (9-7) — Calvin Ridley, WR, Alabama, Jr. 20. Detroit (9-7) — Derrius Guice, RB, LSU, Jr. 21. Cincinnati from Buffalo (9-7) — James Daniels, C, Iowa, Jr. 22. Buffalo from Kansas City (10-6) — Leighton Vander Esch, OLB, Boise St., Jr. 23. L.A. Rams (11-5) — Kolton Miller, OT, UCLA, Jr. 24. Carolina (11-5) — Justin Reid, FS, Stanford, Jr. 25. Tennessee (9-7) — Harold Landry, OLB, Boston College, Sr. 26. Atlanta (10-6) — Maurice Hurst, DT, Michigan, Sr. 27. New Orleans (11-5) — Dallas Goedert, TE, South Dakota St., Sr. 28. Pittsburgh (13-3) — Ronnie Harrison, SS, Alabama, Jr. 29. Jacksonville (10-6) — Lamar Jackson, QB, Louisville, Jr. 30. Minnesota (13-3) — Will Hernandez, OG, Texas-El Paso, Sr. 31. New England (13-3) — Rashaan Evans, OLB, Alabama, Sr. 32. Philadelphia (13-3) — Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A&M, Jr.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
In a perfect world Fundamental Rights would not be necessary. Fundamental Rights are a necessary evil to protect our Liberties. More Fundamental Rights means a much more complex and expensive justice system. If, for example, it was a Fundamental Right to purchase coffee think about how much law enforcement would be needed to investigate violations of this right. More Fundamental Rights means more chaos and actually less Liberty for everyone. The biggest threat to our Liberty and Fundamental Rights are government agency monopolies since legislation and judicial precedent is long lasting. Government is a necessary evil, but unfortunately much of what they do is an unnecessary evil. In past writings, I have pointed out the evils of the Supreme Court whose sworn duty is to protect us from bad legislation but instead they have become a “rubber stamp” for government power grabs. The Court has also unsuccessfully defended federalism and separation of powers that were designed to protect us from government monopolies and unnecessary power. Government is a monopoly and therefore they can do things (or get away with things) that ordinary citizens would be jailed for. Conservatives view government monopolies as necessary (maybe smaller in size) to prevent corruption of human behavior: gambling, cigarettes, drinking, drugs, crime, homosexual behavior and so forth. Conservatives want government to force moral legislation to control human behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, want a big monopolized government to prevent one group of people from taking advantage of another group of people. Liberals view government power necessary to protect minorities, illegal immigrants, women, Muslims, and so forth. Both groups will use absolute power to attain their goals even if it means violating the Liberty and Fundamental Rights of citizens. Consider the Conservative want for a strong military. With our current military enrollment at low levels, conservatives may see a need to institute a draft. However, any draft would violate the Thirteenth Amendment which outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. The rights of cigarette smokers have been violated with higher taxes and restrictions on smoking areas (even on public property). This is discrimination, but cigarette smoke does affect persons in close proximity to the smoker. Conservative government has backed consumption taxes on many so called immoral activities: gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Liberals have done the same, including implementing “sugar” taxes on dozens of products. Conservatives back the monopoly police force in our country to prevent crime. However, monopolies are never efficient since they face little competition. The actual clearance rate (percent of crimes solved – Burglary, Theft, Robbery, Rape, Assault, and Murder) is less than 40% and even more violators will get off at trial since the justice system presumes innocence (another necessary evil to protect against wrongful convictions). The police have a tough job and I would not want to do it, but these conviction rates are not very good. On the other hand, liberals will protect the rights of an illegal alien over a U.S. citizen. Any illegal alien who accepts government funding, fails to pay taxes, and or accepts a job that would otherwise go to a U.S. citizen is violating the rights of U.S. citizens. Liberals providing preferential treatment to a minority group through legislation such as diversity, affirmative action, or a quota based system is violating the rights of majority groups. Liberals support the taking of private property to be distributed for private reasons is also violating a person’s rights. Many companies are providing Muslims with preferential treatment over other religious groups by providing them with prayer rooms and foot baths. And there is little that can be done to stop a monopolized government and judicial system from violating the rights of one group of people at the expense of another. Providing competition against government monopolies can help resolve some of these rights violations. UPS and Fed Ex have competed against the Post Office with success. Hence, it is plausible to compete against other government monopolies. For instance, many private citizens are using their Fundamental Right of freedom of contract to employ private security personnel and systems to protect their rights that the police have been pursuing unsatisfactorily. Also, the Fundamental Right to self-defense would reduce crime. Criminals are more afraid of confronting a potentially armed victim than being caught by the police. Criminals (as do most people) place a priority on the present and neglect contemplating future consequences. This explains why steeper penalties do not deter criminals. As for the justice department monopoly there are private court systems that are competing against our inefficient public court system with success. It would also be useful to change payment methodologies in public courts where the losing party would pay for all Court fees. This would provide restitution to victims, provide relief to the wrongly accused, and eliminate abuse within the system. Using private prisons (instead of public ones) where inmates can work and pay restitution to victims helps protect the rights of victims and would also deter crime. Clearly in areas like Chicago where the violent crime rate is so high, citizens should be able to practice their Fundamental Right of “freedom from contract” to withhold tax money that can be used instead to employ other security options. People have no say over how their taxes will be used and that should change to hold government agencies accountable. When government agencies fail, citizens should have the right to withhold tax dollars. Government monopolies are coercive by nature because they know people will have to pay taxes or be jailed. Hence, there is no motivation or incentive for agencies to perform adequately, but there is plenty of incentive to be wasteful and even corrupt. Further preventions against government monopolies should allow jurisdictions the power to succeed from the Union if the government is failing them (another federalism power the Supreme Court has denied). Think about the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Nations succeeded from Russia because their government was failing them. Of course, Southern states succeeding before the Civil War puts this power in question when it is done for the wrong reasons (slavery).
Sunday, April 15, 2018
The other aspect of gaining an elevated Fundamental Right belongs to the power principle. Those with the most money and lobbying power gain more friendly legislation and rights. The NRA was pivotal in attaining guns as a Fundamental Right for self-defense. Self-Defense is certainly a Fundamental Right, but guns are not the only means or choice of weapon. I do not believe guns had to be elevated as a Fundamental Right since it was protected in the Second Amendment. For example, elevating Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion as Fundamental Rights is redundant and merely a truism since they are in the First Amendment. Another example of power is the LGBT community. This is a strong faction even though they are not a majority. To get the Supreme Court to rule as they did in Romer v. Evans (preferential treatment to gays), Lawrence v. Texas (Sodomy), and Obergefell v. Hodges (Gay Marriage), they must have some clout. Most minority groups have a strong backing through the work of social justice liberals. In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) the Court barely upheld a Michigan Referendum that states: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Justice Sotomayor in her dissent repeatedly states “race matters”. It is hard to imagine or fathom that an anti-discrimination law can be found unconstitutional, but that is exactly what would happen if there is just one more liberal justice pushing for social justice. This is how biased and discriminatory elevated Fundamental Rights can become the law. Remember, the first Fundamental Right elevated by the Court was in the Dred Scott decision (1857). In that case, the Court held all blacks (including freedmen) had no Constitutional rights. This decision led to many other popular (majority rule) decisions such as Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) – the Separate but Equal doctrine, or Buck v. Bell (1927) that compulsory sterilization of the intellectually challenged is permissible. In Plessy, Justice Harlan proclaimed in his famous dissent: “the Constitution is colorblind”. Our rights are protected through government (legislation and judicial system), but more importantly through the “freedom of contract”. We cannot count on government to protect our rights (as pointed out above), but we can certainly control our property and possessions through the “freedom of contract” and the “freedom from contract”. That is why “freedom of contract” should be a Fundamental Right. However, that Fundamental Right was overturned in the landmark case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1935) where the Court held that “freedom of contract” was not as important as government control over economic issues such as work hours, work pay, and work unions via the Commerce Clause. Let’s examine a few examples or rights which currently are not Fundamental Rights elevated by the Supreme Court. First, is the right for justice. This is a Fundamental Right because every individual is allowed some form of Justice against anyone who harmed them and violated their rights. Everyone is allowed justice if they have been wronged. Justice may come in the form of a restitution (monetary) or prison punishment or both. I would like to see more prisons encourage employment opportunities for inmates (who are poor) so they can pay a monetary punishment for crimes. It could also be used as an incentive for release: once an inmate meets their restitution requirements they can be released. Justice, is not always guaranteed. Our judicial system is set up to protect against convicting an innocent person (the presumption of innocence). This means that guilty people will be set free at a high rate since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the defendant violated someone’s rights beyond a reasonable doubt. People may not receive justice, but they have the right to pursue any options at their disposal to achieve justice. The second right is the right to health insurance or healthcare. This is not a Fundamental Right. Health insurance may be seen as self-defense to fight life threatening ailments. Health insurance is property because it is a personal possession that costs money. Health insurance is also a contract. Hence, health insurance has many qualities of Fundamental Rights but like any form of property, people can only buy what they can afford or want. It is the right of any person to choose what they spend their money on. Besides, health insurance can be taken away from anyone who fails to pay their premiums unlike true Fundamental Rights (Property, Justice, Knowledge, and Parental Decisions). Government sponsored health care is an entitlement and no entitlement is a right. Taking money from one private citizen to give to another private citizen violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (the government can take money for public projects such as infrastructure). This welfare concept violates any Fundamental Right principle that property can be taken (yes money is property) through coercive means without any contractual consent from the taxpayer. Welfare creates a “free rider” system where those on welfare can benefit at the expense of others without any requirements of restitution for their takings. Moreover, government intrusion does not make any product or service better it makes them worse. Government healthcare has fewer insurance options, longer wait times for services, and fewer doctor or medical choices (look at ObamaCare, Medicare, VA, and Medicaid) than private sector healthcare options. If healthcare and health insurance are rights, then government intrusion is a restriction or regulation of those rights. Government intrusion does not make healthcare cheaper because it creates more taxes, opens the doors to fraud and waste, and fails to regulate those mechanisms making healthcare more expensive (such as tort reform).
Friday, April 6, 2018
When it comes to the right of privacy, the Constitution mentions specific negative rights that cannot be abridged. Negative rights are not rights that a person would practice, but are individual rights that the government cannot violate. For instance, the government cannot conduct any “searches and seizures” without a warrant. Although these are negative rights, they are still Fundamental Rights because they protect every single individual the same. The right to privacy as discussed before is very broad and ambiguous. Under my definition it would only pertain to a person being alone, not in a group of people or with a spouse. The only exception to the “self” rule is for children. Parents have the Fundamental Right to make “decisions for their children” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925 and Troxel v. Granville, 2000). Children have restricted rights, for example their free speech is limited by age restrictions on driving, alcohol, the military, to marry, and to buy adult materials. Children do what their parents say, not what they want to do. Property and possessions owned by one’s self are fundamentally protected rights. Property or possessions that have shared ownership are not fundamentally protected since clear ownership may not be determined. For instance, during a divorce, property that is co-owned is divided and many times it is not divided equally. For this reason, rights under multi ownership are hard to determine, but this is not so when property is owned by one person. People that own property individually are free to enter into contracts. Multi-owned properties or possessions can be contracted but only with the consent of all owners. So what Fundamental Rights elevated by the Supreme Court would be allowed to stand as inalienable rights: the right to contract (Lochner v. New York, 1905). Everyone has a right “to” contract and a right “from” contract to protect with their possessions. Anyone who owns a cell phone signs a contract. Most people have a will or marriage contracts (marriage, divorce, or prenuptial). Hence, contracts are a part of our daily lifes. Also, the right to knowledge (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923) and the right to self-defense (D.C. v. Heller, 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago, 2010) would also be Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights are to protect everyone as individuals, not just moralistic (procreation and marriage) or social justice rights (diversity, abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and contraception) that protect a portion of the electorate. The Supreme Court is inflating the value of Fundamental Rights by elevating too many. We all have the right to drive a car, ride a bike, walk, talk, watch TV, play video games, eat what we want to eat, and so forth. We all have rights to live our lives as we please so long as we are not breaking the law. But not everything can be a Fundamental Right. Fundamental Rights should be saved for those aspects of life that are common and vital to all. Women may have the right to get an abortion and people may have the right to engage in sodomy and people may have the right to gay marriage or traditional marriage but these issues should be left to the states to regulate and should not be elevated as Fundamental Rights. Having a diversity of conflicting rights defeats the purpose of having Fundamental Rights in the first place. It makes the law too complicated to interpret. There is no doubt that Fundamental Rights are becoming a byproduct of the “partiality” principle. Everyone is partial to themselves, their family, and their friends over others. In fact, the inalienable right to “pursue happiness” can make us all partial to attain this goal at the expense of others. No Fundamental Right should be partial, but most are. Legislation should not be partial, but it is without exception. How does this happen? It is what James Madison called in Federalist #10 as “factions”. The strongest group of people (mostly the majority) will get their way on topics and issues of politics. This is precisely why Madison proposed a separation of powers for the structure of our government: to help mitigate the faction issue. Two recent stories on the local news demonstrate this point. In the first story, Representative Mike Coffman held a townhall meeting and a person asked him (I am paraphrasing) “I got searched to get into this event I assume to protect you, what are doing for me?” Of course this got a massive applause. In the second story, residents were not happy about lack of space on a bus route for both persons (standing room only) and their bikes. What is their solution to this problem, the state should build a train route between Denver and Boulder. This is the partiality principle at its best. A few people want us to spend billions to solve a standing room and bike restriction problem on one bus route. Why can’t the solution be to add a couple more buses on the schedule? Of course I will never use this train but I will undoubtedly be forced to pay more in taxes if this faction of people can get a strong enough backing. One of the most famous quotes from President Kennedy is “ask not what your country will do for you, instead ask what you can do for your country.” Unfortunately, this is not how people think. This is precisely why I do not like to join organizations (factions). My cycling club wants more tax money to be spent on safer roads. Sure, I would love safer roads, it could save my life. But this action would not be fair to 75% of the people who do not ride bikes. Why should they pay tax money for road upgrades? Should bike lanes be a priority for local taxes? Probably not. Wanting safer roads to bike on would purely be a selfish desire and clearly not looking at the big picture of local needs.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
In previous writings “One Important Test for Fundamental Rights” and “Should Fundamental Rights be Polar Opposites” I illustrate historical analysis, guidelines, and interpretations for Fundamental Rights. In this text, I will hypothesize that Fundamental Rights should only include inalienable rights. What exactly is an inalienable right? The Declaration of Independence refers to unalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing (inalienable is more of a modern term): “incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred”. In other words, an inalienable right is “a right that cannot be extinguished or transferred even by the consent of the right-holder.” In general terms according to Randy Barnett: “Rights to possess, use, and control resources external to one’s person are generally alienable rights” whereas “Rights to possess, use and control one’s person are inalienable rights.” Contracts between alienable and inalienable rights can be distinguished as “to give” or “to do” respectively. Personally, I believe an inalienable right should include control over any resource or possession of property that is solely owned. As the saying goes “first comes rights, and then comes government”. This is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says “All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights” and it is the duty of government to “secure these rights”. Those unalienable rights are as explained by John Locke to have the freedom to do whatever you want with what is yours. People should not have rights to what liberals like to call Hobbesian freedom and that is to do whatever you want (that is okay up to a point when a person violates the rights of others). In other words, you can only control what is yours and you cannot control other people or what they own. This principle is called “individual sovereignty”. There are three sovereignties shared in the Constitution: the federal government, State governments, and “we the people”. Unfortunately, individual sovereignty is ignored at the expense of government, but we always forget that “rights come first, and then comes government”: meaning individual sovereignty should take priority over government sovereignty. Any need to regulate any Fundamental or Inalienable right must be justified as necessary to protect the Fundamental rights of other citizens. Instead, the government believes they have whatever power necessary to achieve an end result and they often neglect the harmful means they will use to accomplish that task. A good government will find the least regulatory or restrictive means to accomplish an ends. Under this definition of a Fundamental Right, these rights can only pertain to one’s self and they should only be rights that are universal or practiced by all or occur naturally within one’s life. Within the Constitution a few of these Fundamental Rights are outlined in the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Religion. And we know the Supreme Court has elevated at least a dozen of other Fundamental Rights not mentioned in the Constitution. For example, we have the Fundamental Right to marry: (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923 [traditional marriage]; Loving v. Virginia, 1967 [interracial marriage]; and Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 [gay marriage]). We have the Fundamental Right to procreate: (Oklahoma v. Skinner, 1942). And we have the Fundamental Right to sodomy: (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Under my definition, these would not qualify as Fundamental Rights for the following reasons: 1. These are not universal rights wanted by all for example, being single, divorced, childless, and sex could just as easily be considered Fundamental Rights; and 2. These rights are not fundamental because they require more than one’s self to accomplish the task. This does not preclude the Court from finding these cases constitutional, they just cannot do so by elevating them as Fundamental Rights. Likewise, abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973) and contraception (Eisenstaedt v. Baird, 1972) would not be Fundamental Rights. Rights conflict when the Court creates an inflation of Fundamental Rights. The Conservative Court elevates “moralistic” rights and the Liberal Court elevates “social justice” rights which tend to conflict. This is exactly what is happening in Roe (abortion) and Eisenstaedt (contraception) when compared to Skinner (procreation). Abortion and Contraception rights stem from the Fundamental Right “right to privacy” (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). If abortion is a Fundamental Right, then too can be the Fundamental Right to have cosmetic surgery. Sure, people have the right to make these decisions, but they are not Fundamental Rights universally accepted and or practiced by all. Besides, contraception is not a self-made decision, nor is abortion for that matter (doctors, family, and counselors). Even if abortion and contraception were individual decisions, the Constitution is not gender specific. The Supreme Court made horrific discriminatory decisions against blacks and women in the past but that is not a reason to support social justice to discriminate against another group of people. Two wrongs do not make a right.