The first question is whether this potential bill would violate the SDP and whether divorce is a fundamental right. The SDP is based on the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The SDP is a constitutional safeguard limiting state power, regardless of how safeguards procedures may substantially limit state power. (Griswold) For a person to raise an issue regarding the SDP, there must be state action that prohibits or restricts a person's liberty. Whether the question is based on traditional notions or on the text of the Constitution, it will be analyzed with careful scrutiny because it is a fundamental right and more modern questions are analyzed on a rational basis. (Palko) The fundamental rights that have received greater scrutiny are those that our Constitution protects, such as marriage, family and privacy. (Griswold) Modern issues of freedom, which are not traditionally rooted in our society, are valued at a lower level, such as assisted suicide and adultery. (Glucksberg, Michael H. v. Gerald D.) Divorce can be considered a fundamental right because it is associated with everything that is considered a fundamental right. Getting married is a fundamental right and it is not very difficult to incorporate divorce. (Virginia) There is a fundamental right to have a family and to have sex, but it is also a fundamental right to prevent having children. (Moore, Roe v. Wade and Griswold) These fundamental rights work together just like marriage and divorce. One can try to argue that this is not based on texts or traditions, but marriage and divorce have been around for a long time. Courts should consider divorce a fundamental right. With divorce considered a fundamental right, the court would escape... middle of paper ...... figures showed they were more likely to do so than women. In this legislation, statistics collected show that men are more likely to have an affair, men are more likely to earn more money, and women are the caregivers of the family. This means that men would leave their families and families would be left without their main financial support. In Craig, the Court did not find that the statistics provided a strong enough argument to justify the legislation. Here, the statistics aren't even as interrelated as they were in the Craig case and don't fully show a substantive reason. There are four compelling lines as to why the legislation should be passed, but these lines show no real, substantive reason to discriminate against an entire sex by not letting them file for divorce. The legislation in question fails the I/S test and would be struck down.