Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I think you miss the point. We have a right to freedom from unreasonable search, too, but this freedom is tempered when applied to children - see the school locker cases. My point was, we may hold that there is a Const. right to have an abortion, but that right is (or should be, IMHO) tempered for children. What is held as a right for adults in our society may not always be appropriate for free exercise by the will of children.
|
I understand that point, thanks, but that didn't seem to be the point you were making. A school's right to search lockers is a better analogy -- i.e., one involving government action -- then the analogy you made before, to non-state action, of a parent's ability to prevent a child from publishing certain speech. (Hell, my wife has the ability to prevent me from certain speech too, First Amendment notwithstanding.)
I haven't argued, and don't argue, the notification/consent issue on constitutional grounds. It's not a sound argument for the very reason you raise. My argument is based on the cost/benefits analysis and on what I believe are the limits of what government can and should do. It surprises me that small government types believe that government should be in the business of trying to maintain or create family bonds and lines of communication when those bonds and lines are already apparently broken, or non-existent.
But, as you said, 'nuff said on this subject.
