The Sexual Freedom Cases? Contraception, Abortion, Abstinence, and the Constitution

Many of the constitutional scholars including Richard Moore, Richard Posner, Lawrence Tribe, Robinzy adopted a series of Supreme Court rulings from the 1960s to the 1970s and negated the anti-contraception law and abortion law. It reflects the judicial recognition of constitutional rights to sexual acts for non-nutritional purposes. As contraception and abortion control laws are considered not to significantly hamper reproductive control as people retain the option of avoiding potential reproductive behaviors, conservation activities can be carried out in these "sexual liberties" It is said to be legitimate. . This article evaluates the interpretation of this "sexual free case" by considering some conflicting explanations already provided. Many of these claims do not provide a compelling alternative to the interpretation of sexual rights, but methods issued from the viewpoints of gender equality, physical integrity or reproductive autonomy are sexual rights Dictation above interpretation should not be regarded as logical. However, to do this, these alternate descriptions require some way to bridge the logic gaps used from abstinence assertions. This article provides a means to bridge this gap which relies on constitutional restrictions on measures that the government can pursue its objective and excludes efforts to threaten injuries or create new ones. In addition, however, these alternatives believe that the decision of the Supreme Court of contraception and abortion is based on different principles, thereby detracting from the concept of ownership that the court himself sees as a sexual free case.

Note: This abstract is published in the previous issue of the Constitution and contains information on inaccurate invoices. This is a modified version

In the 19th century abortion was attacked when women claimed to have power and in the 20th century it was attacked when women claimed sexual freedom. As with contraception, abortion means that women can distinguish sex and birth - this is still a controversial concept. An abortion prevention campaign was started when a woman insisted on sexual independence as in the progressive era and the 1970s and onwards. Abortion is mostly ignored by people suppressing abortion, when abortion is most closely related to family needs rather than women's liberties during the Great Depression. The period of anti-abortion activity shows hostile to women's independence

Many of the constitutional scholars including Richard Moore, Richard Posner, Lawrence Tribe, Robinzy adopted a series of Supreme Court rulings from the 1960s to the 1970s and negated the anti-contraception law and abortion law. It reflects the judicial recognition of constitutional rights to sexual acts for non-nutritional purposes. As contraception and abortion control laws are considered not to significantly hamper reproductive control as people retain the option of avoiding potential reproductive behaviors, conservation activities can be carried out in these "sexual liberties" It is said to be legitimate. . This article evaluates the interpretation of this "sexual free case" by considering some conflicting explanations already provided. However, to do this, these alternate descriptions require some way to fill the logic gaps. This has been exploited by forbidden discussion.

A global supporter in the field of health and rights on sex and reproduction places sex and reproductive rights in an unnatural separation and has a network of sexual and reproductive rights intertwined under the rights of contraception and abortion I refuse to put it. This field, known as "health and rights on sex and reproduction", captures the independent but related concepts between relevance between sex and reproductive health and rights to health and autonomy. People promoting this comprehensive and human rights framework will not hesitate to claim their acceptance as an integral part of their own values ​​and empowerment of women.

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol38_2011/human_rights_spring2011/estranged_bedfellows_sexual_rights_and_reproductive_rights_and_reproductive_rights_in_us_constitutional_law /