Will Demise of “Roe” Be a Death Knell for Contraception, Marriage Rights?

His explosive. draft opinionIn Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationThe following was published: PoliticoJustice Samuel Alito ruled in favor Roe v. Wade Planned Parenthood v. Casey. His draft argues that abortion is no more a constitutional right and leaves the fates for those who seek abortions up to the state laws.

“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Alito writes. “RoeAnd Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

If four other members of the Supreme Court adopt Alito’s draft, many other privacy rights we hold dear will be in jeopardy. They include the rights for contraception and same sex marriage.

Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted for Alito in December. oral argumentAccording to Politico. That’s a five-member majority if they sign on to Alito’s draft opinion by the end of June.

The Supreme Court was established in 1969, almost half a century ago. Roe that the Constitution protects “a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The court relied on longstanding precedents holding that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty” prohibits governmental interference with personal decisions about marriage, contraception, procreation, family relationships, child-rearing and education.

Twenty years later, it is still in CaseyThe court confirmed the central holding of Roe — that a pregnant woman has the right to an abortion before the fetus becomes viable (at about 23 weeks of pregnancy). Casey highlighted the “settled” principle that “the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood … as well as bodily integrity.”

The court cited CaseyApproval in Washington v. Glucksberg, in which it listed the right to “abortion” with the rights “to marry,” “to use contraception,” “to have children” and “to bodily integrity,” which are recognized in a “long line of cases” that interpret the Due Process Clause. It is necessary that due process be followed before the government can take someone’s life, liberty, or property.

In Lawrence v. Texas, The court relied upon Casey to hold that states cannot criminalize “homosexual conduct.” The Lawrence court said that the “right to liberty under the Due Process Clause” guarantees “a realm of personal liberty that the government may not enter.”

These same precedents were used by the court to instigate the case. Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage: “Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make,” and are therefore “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy” protected by the Due Process Clause.

In his draft opinion Dobbs, Alito writes, “We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Alito, however, reexamines the fundamental foundations of the rights for contraception, sexual liberty, and same-sex marital. He holds that abortion, which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is not “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

“On the contrary,” Alito writes, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973 [when Roe was decided].”

Alito specifically criticizes LawrenceAnd Obergefell, writing that they are not “deeply rooted in history.” But as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School, notedThe Los Angeles Times, “Unless the court is going to repudiate all of the other privacy rights, it is impossible to deny that laws prohibiting abortion also intrude on a woman’s liberty.”

In his draft opinion, Alito “disavows the entire line of jurisprudence upon which Roe rests: the existence of ‘unenumerated rights’ that safeguard individual autonomy from state invasion,” Mark Joseph Stern wroteat Slate. “Alito asserts that any such right must be ‘deeply rooted’ in the nation’s history and tradition, and access to abortion has no such roots.”

If the court rules in your favor RoeAbout half of all states will outlaw severe punishments or ban them. limit abortion. Thirteen states with “trigger laws” would immediately ban abortion. Five states with pre-existing trigger laws would ban abortion immediately in thirteen states.RoeThese bans could be enforced again. 14 states would prohibit abortions before fetal viability. Both restrictions and prohibition of abortion would be prohibited. disproportionately affectPeople of color and poor women.

People suffering early miscarriagesIf you have ectopic or unplanned pregnancies, your health could be affected. RoeThis is a mistake. Fertility procedures, such as egg extractions, IVF, and stem cell procedures, could be banned.

Other “unenumerated” rights not specifically listed in the Constitution would be jeopardized, including the right to travel, the right to vote and the right to interracial marriage.

The implications of a Supreme Court decision to overrule RoeThese are beyond comprehension. Not only will abortion rights be denied, but so would other medical procedures. Privacy rights that we take for granted now could be lost.

The United States is moving, frighteningly, towards an evangelical theocracy which has methodically and finally taken control of the Supreme Court. We need to remain vigilant and take steps to prevent this from happening. This includes speaking out, contacting Congress and the White House, writing letters to the editor and demonstrating as thousands of people do across the country.