In Minnesota we need to keep privacy rights alive. That Court had to deny we have such a right because it was not express in Constitutiional language. Wooden headed stuff, for if we do not have privacy from the government's powerful reach when wrong, we lack the main anchor of a sound government-citizen balance. When Trump steals records for whatever purpose, DOJ having to get a court warrant to retake possession, the Republicans then see privacy is important, but they packed this Court with bad people. So we keep things correct in Minneosta, our State, or we lose
We need to be free of what the Republicans would do. They are on the march and the agenda is clear. Matt Birk in love with this Federalist Society's packed Court and its mischief, which is only starting.
This truth means, two things. Overlapping things. First, keep Tim Walz as Governor, and, second, take back the Senate and hold the House in the Minnesota legislature. If we do that we keep our priorities and freedom alive.
Those two things define what is needed and why.
In a nutshell. Klein at Down With Tyranny wrote:
The GOP Wanted To Abolish Choice-- Now Voters Want To Abolish Them
That’s Congresswoman-elect Mary Peltola’s first ad for a full term representing Alaska. She frames the abortion debate perfectly, especially for a libertarian-type state like Alaska. No mention of abortion— just infringement of individual rights. She’s a committed advocate for “personal privacy rights” and preventing the government from”taking away our freedoms.” She closes by asserting Alaskans “should have the right to make choices that work for ourselves and our families.” So far, Mary, a Democrat, is doing real well. She came in first in the first round of voting and she came in first in the second round, which has made her the first Democrat to represent Alaska in the House since 1973 (when Democratic Rep Nick Begich was killed in a mysterious plane crash and a special election resulted in a win for conservative Republican Don Young, who Begich had just beaten 4 months earlier).
There are a lot of stories lately about why the much-touted “red wave” seems to have turned— at best— into a red trickle. Trump is a big part of it— and a handful of apparent Democratic successes in Congress (plus student loan forgiveness and the hostile GOP reaction). But, overwhelmingly, it is abortion. This morning, [two days ago] Aaron Zitner, the Wall Street Journal polling editor, fielded 3 questions. The first was what caused the change in the outlook for the midterms. He wrote: “In a word: Abortion. Voters are still very pessimistic about the economy and inflation— even a bit more than in our prior survey, in March. But since then, abortion has emerged as an important issue in motivating the votes of many people, including women in political swing groups. Women who are independents, for example, shifted 20 percentage points in the Democrats’ direction, and Hispanic women moved by 15 points. That’s one reason we saw Democrats shift to a small lead of three percentage points— within the poll’s margin of error— on the question of which party voters would support for Congress if the election were today. Republicans held a five-point advantage in March… We found that, on the broadest level, views of whether abortion should be legal remained largely stable. Some 60% said abortion should be mostly or always legal, five points higher than in March. At the same time, voters had negative views— and in some cases very negative views— of specific restrictions that state or federal lawmakers might enact. For example, 62% opposed a ban on abortion at six weeks with an exception only for the health of the mother, and 57% opposed a similar ban at 15 weeks. Larger shares opposed banning women from crossing state lines for abortion or prosecuting doctors for performing abortion.”
But again, the bedrock that Roe v. Wade rested upon was privacy. The right had to be fought for, and one of today's most respected jurists was a guide stone. This court today says now that you have no privacy right reaching to abortion at the federal level - because the Constitution does not say so in clear and express language. That is foolishness. From the Republicans on that court.
What that line of thinking in the Court means is that the right has to be fought for still, with the Court Brandeis worked from now being headed down a dead-end road against personal rights.
You fight with your ballot. It is the only real power you hold. Keep abortion available, as well as your federally recognized right to family planning via contraception. It is presently a federally recognized right. It would be the next logical target, since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is the leading case premised on privacy. Griswold is the predecessor to Roe. It would be the next Roberts Court target in undoing privacy as a clear, vested, federal civil right. In a trend leading the wrong way. Republicans at the helm.
__________UPDATE_________
Technology marches on with at least one firm aggregating cell phone tracking data to disclose where users went with their phones. Selling the technology to police and other purchasers. An interesting and thorough AP item describing this includes:
Privacy advocates worry Fog’s location tracking could be put to other novel uses, like keeping tabs on people who seek abortions in states where it is now illegal. These concerns were heightened when a Nebraska woman was charged in August with helping her teenage daughter end a pregnancy after investigators got hold of their Facebook messages.
Government’s use of location data is still being weighed by the courts, too. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that police generally need a warrant to look at records that reveal where cellphone users have been.
Nearly two years after walking off the crime data supervisor job with the Greensboro police force, Hall still worries about police surveillance in neighboring communities.
“Anyone with that login information can do as many searches as they want,” Hall said. “I don’t believe the police have earned the trust to use that, and I don’t believe it should be legal.”