Bills like SB 138 in California will enable people like me to access health care, mental health services, birth control, and substance treatments without fear that a parent or partner will find out about it, saving out-of-pocket and state costs along the way.
A situation in June in which a woman sent unsolicited penis pictures she had received to the sender’s mother, and an ongoing debate in Britain about what, if any, depictions of sex should be banned have raised interesting questions about the limits of privacy and consent.
Contraception is controversial only in politics. As we celebrate the anniversary of Griswold, we must fulfill its promise and ensure contraceptive access for all.
As a society, we feel entitled to strip people of their privacy rights when they appear to transgress how we believe they should live their lives. In fact, we are extremely hypocritical in our approach to privacy.
An Alaska state court judge ruled a 2010 parental notification did not violate teenagers privacy rights or equal protection guarantees.
One key reason for the success of state legislatures in restricting women’s right to choose might be that the fight over abortion in the United States historically has been framed as an issue of privacy. And the right to privacy offers poor protection for what is also an issue of life, health, and—above all—discrimination.
The public may never know whether Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is committed to privacy rights because of the conspiracy of silence that governs judicial nominations.
What do aspirin, field trips, and abortion have in common?
The Mormons, Knights of Columbus, and others who donated in favor of Proposition 8 now want to see their “right to privacy” protected and stay anonymous. Hypocrisy, anyone?
As Election Day draws near, let’s vote for a government that goes beyond keeping laws off our bodies. Instead, let’s vote for a government that can create laws to keep our bodies and communities safe and healthy.