US ruling on abortion: Clarence Thomas wants to impose limits on same-sex marriage and access to birth control

0

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has revealed he has laws protecting same-sex marriage and birth control in his sights, after rejecting Roe v. Wade.

Following Friday’s landmark decision, Thomas called on fellow lawyers to reverse previous decisions that followed similar legal precedent.

Prospective legislative changes, released in a concurring opinion of the decision authored by Thomas, would see limits placed on same-sex marriage, same-sex sexual activity and citizens’ access to birth control.

It comes as the Supreme Court controversially elected to overturn Roe v. Wade, a nearly 50-year-old ruling that granted women the constitutional right to abortion.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called on fellow lawyers to overturn previous landmark rulings after the court dismissed Roe v. wade friday

A woman cries outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning after the court ruled that the

A woman cries outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning after the court ruled that the ‘Constitution does not confer the right to abortion’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared in front of the Supreme Court among the crowd following the Supreme Court's release of the Dobbs decision ending abortion protections

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared in front of the Supreme Court among the crowd following the Supreme Court’s release of the Dobbs decision ending abortion protections

Pro-life activists cheer outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning after hearing that the High Court had overturned Roe v.  wade

Pro-life activists cheer outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning after hearing that the High Court had overturned Roe v. wade

Democratic members of Congress walk out of the Capitol to the Supreme Court to join pro-choice protesters outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning

Democratic members of Congress walk out of the Capitol to the Supreme Court to join pro-choice protesters outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning

Senator Elizabeth Warren joins the crowd outside the Massachusetts State House after the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v.  wade

Senator Elizabeth Warren joins the crowd outside the Massachusetts State House after the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. wade

In his separate opinion also published on Friday, Thomas – the court’s most senior judge – welcomed the guidelines, but noted how they failed to address citizens’ rights outside of abortion.

The 74-year-old judge, appointed by President George HW Bush, went on to say the court should reconsider other cases of due process precedent.

Thomas’ argument was rooted in the belief that since the Constitution’s due process clause was found not to guarantee the right to an abortion in Friday’s ruling, the court should apply the same logic to other historical cases.

He cited three in particular – including Griswold v. Connecticut of 1965, which allowed married couples to purchase and use contraception, and Obergefell v. Hodges of 2015, which allowed same-sex couples to legally marry.

Thomas' argument was rooted in the belief that since the Constitution's due process clause was found not to guarantee the right to an abortion in Friday's ruling, the court should apply the same logic to other historical cases.

Thomas’ argument was rooted in the belief that since the Constitution’s due process clause was found not to guarantee the right to an abortion in Friday’s ruling, the court should apply the same logic to other historical cases.

Thomas cited three in particular – including Griswold v.  Connecticut of 1965, which allowed married couples to purchase and use contraception, and Obergefell v.  Hodges of 2015, which allowed same-sex couples (pictured) to legally marry.

Thomas cited three in particular – including Griswold v. Connecticut of 1965, which allowed married couples to purchase and use contraception, and Obergefell v. Hodges of 2015, which allowed same-sex couples (pictured) to legally marry.

On Friday, President Joe Biden addressed the nation from the Cross Hall of the White House, calling him a

On Friday, President Joe Biden addressed the nation from the White House’s Cross Hall, calling it a “very solemn moment” and a “sad day for the court and the country.” He also warned: “If the rationale for the decision as published were to stand, a whole host of rights are at stake. A whole range of rights

Perhaps most shockingly, however, the jurist suggested the court also reconsider Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 judgment that decided to overturn centuries-old criminal penalties in some states against citizens who committed sodomy.

All have to do with fundamental American privacy, due process and equal protective rights — principles also at the heart of Friday’s decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“For this reason,” Thomas, 74, wrote, “in future cases, we should reconsider all substantive due process precedents of this Court, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.”

The judge, a notorious conservative, went on to say that “we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in these precedents.

Loving v. Notably absent from previous cases in Thomas’ concurring opinion was the 1967 Virginia case, which prohibited the state from banning interracial marriage.

Thomas is in an interracial marriage because justice is black and his wife Ginni Thomas – a conservative activist who has absorbed Trump’s “big lie” – is white.

Thomas’ claim comes as members of the left have warned that such a move could lead to other landmark cases being overturned, following Politco leaking an early draft court decision in may.

Retired Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer warned in the dissenting opinion that the current court could also attack pre- and post-Roe decisions that are based on the same legal reasoning, including Griswold v.  Connecticut and the landmark Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Retired Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer warned in the dissenting opinion that the current court could also attack pre- and post-Roe decisions that are based on the same legal reasoning, including Griswold v. Connecticut and the landmark Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage.

President Joe Biden – who called Friday’s 5-4 vote to overturn the 1973 decision a “tragic mistake” on Friday – said of the draft notice in May: “If the rationale for the decision as published had to be maintained, a whole range of rights are involved. A whole range of rights.

‘The idea [that] we let states make those decisions, localities make those decisions, would be a fundamental shift in what we have been doing,” the president added.

On Friday, Biden also pointed to three justices appointed by the former Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — as central to Roe’s overthrow.

“It was three judges appointed by a President – ​​Donald Trump – who were at the heart of today’s decision to tip the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right of women in this country,” said Biden.

Retired Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the dissent signed by Justices Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also predicted that Roe’s disappearance could have wider implications.

“And no one should be convinced that this majority is done with their job,” Breyer wrote, after explaining how the ruling suggests a “woman has no right to speak.”

“The right recognized by Roe and Casey is not the only one. Rather, the Court has tied it for decades to other established freedoms involving bodily integrity, family relationships, and procreation,” Breyer noted.

Breyer, like Thomas, mentions Griswold c. Connecticut – which allowed married couples to use birth control without government interference – and then in Obergefell, the landmark same-sex marriage ruling.

“They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decision-making over life’s most personal decisions,” Breyer said.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Samuel Alito, said the ruling only concerned abortion, arguing it was not “deeply rooted in history”.

Breyer maintained that was not possible.

‘So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if so, all rights that do not have a history dating back to the mid-19th century are unsafe,” Breyer wrote. “Either the mass of majority opinion is hypocrisy or additional constitutional rights are threatened. It’s one or the other.

Share.

Comments are closed.