The overturning of Roe v Wade was, to me, the beginning of a firestorm. Even though I do not really believe in abortions, I feel that it is a woman’s right to decide for herself if she wants to go through with it. The Supreme Court is somewhat right when they said that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed abortions.
As Alito writes for the majority in their opinion on overturning Roe v Wade , “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion.” (He makes this point at least three times.) Considering this silence about abortion, Alito asserts, the Court has no right to recognize a right to one. In addition, Alito writes that Roe “held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”
If there’s no right to abortion, and the by the reasoning that follows, that there is no right to privacy either. Alito stated that is only talking about abortion rights, no other rights, but Clarence Thomas has other thoughts.
Judge Thomas Warped Thoughts
Clarence Thomas stated: “[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all the Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Thomas added that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell deserve to be overturned because they were “demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
If you do not recognize the names of these cases, here what Thomas was arguing:
- Griswold v. Connecticut: In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples’ access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans’ right to privacy.
- Lawrence v. Texas: In 2003, in a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In the process, the high court, for the first time, made sexual activity between same-sex partners legal in the United States.
- Obergefell v. Hodges: In 2015, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the right to get married cannot be limited solely to straight couples. In the process, the justices brought marriage equality to every state in the nation.
It seems that Thomas left out one case from that list,
- Loving v. Virginia: Another right to privacy case. Landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the U.S. unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
Thomas left this off his list. Could it be that he is in an interracial marriage? (Do as I say, not as I do.)
What Happens Now
Where do we go from here? There are two side as to which way we should proceed. One side wants total banning of abortions in all states. The court left it up to the states to make the decision. The far right wants a national law banning them. The other side wants to let states decide without any national law.
Hopefully in their haste, the right will not touch Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell or Loving. Just let people live their own lives as they want to with any interference.