IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v13y1994i1-2p91-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privacy as Autonomy vs. Privacy as Familial Attachment: A Conceptual Approach to Right to Privacy Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Boling

Abstract

This article explains why the Supreme Court's privacy jurisprudence has become deeply problematic for addressing emerging reproductive and sexual choice issues, focusing on abortion funding, minors seeking abortions, adults engaging in consenting homosexual sex, and pregnant women accused of abusing their fetuses. The article makes two arguments. First, it contends that what is private about the rights asserted in cases like Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade has never been fully articulated nor defended, leaving these central decisions conceptually unpersuasive. Second, the article shows that “privacy” is used in two very different senses in Supreme Court constitutional right‐to‐privacy decisions: one rooted in respect for marriage and the family, the other in notions of personal autonomy. Although both senses deserve to be protected, the court has tended to prefer the familial sense of privacy to the autonomy one, with serious consequences for privacy concerns that are not connected to family relationships or that are perceived as undercutting “family values.”

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Boling, 1994. "Privacy as Autonomy vs. Privacy as Familial Attachment: A Conceptual Approach to Right to Privacy Cases," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 13(1‐2), pages 91-110, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:13:y:1994:i:1-2:p:91-110
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00581.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00581.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1994.tb00581.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:13:y:1994:i:1-2:p:91-110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.