On Friday June 24, the Supreme Court of The United States overruled Roe vs. Wade. Roe was the case that guaranteed a woman’s right to have an abortion. That court decided that abortion is a medical procedure and, as such, it falls under the expectation of privacy between a patient and their physician. The current court, upending 47 years of precedent, decided this was the wrong decision and overturned it. That being the case, the right to have an abortion was returned to the states. Currently thirteen states had “trigger laws” banning abortion that went into immediate effect. Five states had existing laws that banned abortion that were enacted before 1973. Four more states ban abortion after six weeks. This means that abortion is now banned in twenty-four states.
The Roe decision relied on the fourteenth amendment’s right to privacy. That right to privacy interpretation precedent was established under Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. That decision relied on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments. The court determined that the right to privacy, among other unenumerated rights, were implied. This has been the foundation of many following court precedents and decisions.
This court overturned Roe because the constitution doesn’t specifically grant the right to an abortion. It’s a very strict interpretation of the constitution that has never before been used in rulings. While the Roe decision is careful to call out that overturning Roe shouldn’t affect any other right, whether specifically stated or not, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas submitted a concurring opinion where he stated the court should re-examine:
- Griswold vs. Connecticut, which established the right to birth control medication and products.
- Lawrence vs. Texas, which ruled states couldn’t enact laws against what consenting adults did in their bedroom. It legalized gay sex.
- Obergefell vs. Hodges, which established the right for same-sex couples to marry.
Thomas has a long history of lamenting Lawrence and Obergefell. He has always felt they were decided incorrectly and has wanted to reverse them; he’s been very vocal about it. I was a little confused about why he would bring up Griswold, though. Now that I look at it, overturning Griswold would revoke the precedent of the implied right to privacy that is the lynchpin to so many other things.
All of the talk about overturning these rights seemed a little sudden. We knew to expect the rhetoric ever since the draft opinion was leaked in April. I was reading an article from Medium.com about the end of abortion rights. They referred to a talk given by Jane Elliott, a well-known teacher on racism and equality. She says it all revolves around the need for more white babies to be born.
A prominent conspiracy theory going around in Republican circles is The Great Replacement theory. It says that the Democrats are trying to replace white voters with foreigners in order to maintain power. There are numerous reasons why this is comical, but the main one is that new immigrants can’t vote anyway. Jane Elliott says they’re going off what’s said in the book The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies? by Ben J. Wattenberg. The idea is that the white population is in decline which will lead to people of color becoming the majority. Outlawing contraceptives and mandating forced pregnancy through banning abortion will increase the white birth rate. It’s been estimated that 60% of abortions are for white women. If the Republican party can increase the white birth rate, they’ll cement their status as majority. Racism plays into this because racists know they treat minorities poorly and they’re deathly afraid of becoming the minority.
Pushing the bar for acceptable public discourse lower, Senator John Cornyn from Texas tweeted:
Plessy vs Ferguson was an 1896 case that established the doctrine of “Separate, but equal” schools for black children. This was the status quo until Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. The Brown case didn’t explicitly overturn Plessy, but it ruled that segregated public education was unconstitutional. It would appear that Mr. Cornyn wants to return to pre-Plessy law that ensured poorer quality schools for blacks and other minorities.
There’s so much more to unpack, but it’s late and I need more time to think on it. I’ll continue my thoughts in my next post.
