Sunday, September 25, 2022

Four Supreme Court decisions that could be affected by reversal of an abortion decision

Wade, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court’s Associate Justice Samuel Alito, in his draft opinion, insisted that his ruling was limited to abortion and would not affect other rights.

“Nothing in this opinion,” Alito wrote in the leaked document, “should be understood to cast doubt on the precedents relating to abortion.”

The document is a preliminary draft and may change over the next several weeks before a final decision is given. But despite Alito’s assurances, the widespread case to overturn the 1973 decision and the subsequent 1992 abortion ruling has raised alarm among liberals that the same logic could be used to take back other rights. .

Among them: the right of adults to use contraception, the freedom to marry outside their race, and the right to same-sex marriage – freedoms collectively known as “substantial due process rights”.

President Joe Biden said last week, “A whole range of rights are in question, a whole range of rights, if the justification of the decision issued is to be upheld.”

Central to Alito’s argument is an old conservative objection that Roe v. Wade has “made up” which has no basis in the Constitution.

Read Also:  Are driving record traffic and drug overdose deaths risky epidemic behavior?

Confirming Norma McCorvey’s right—in the court case Jane Roe—to terminate her pregnancy, she ruled 7-2 that abortion is part of a “fundamental right to privacy” enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Adopted in 1868, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court to affirm constitutional rights such as the right to marriage and the right to use contraception.

But Alito argued that neither abortion nor secrecy could be found in the Constitution.

Echoing another conservative criticism, he wrote that the 1973 ruling was “extremely wrong” in part because the right to abortion is “not deeply rooted in the country’s history and traditions.”

In fact, he said, abortion was criminalized by many states at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment after the American Civil War.

But just because something was illegal in the 19th century and it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, doesn’t mean it can’t be constitutionally protected, says a professor of law at George Washington University Law School. Sonia Sutter said.

Read Also:  MLB's first female minor-league manager survives the 'American Dream'

“When you analyze to see how wrongly Roe made the decision, you can use the exact same analysis to determine that there aren’t other rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. done,” Suter told VOA in an interview.

Caroline Frederickson, a professor of law at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the left-leaning Brennan Center, said Alito’s assurance that her decision would not affect other instances was “misleading.”

“It doesn’t work that way,” she said in an interview with VOA. “Anyone who is familiar with the common law system understands that precedents are based on legal logic, and they evolve. One precedent follows another. If you base a law on a fundamental disagreement with legal logic, , the same exact reasoning would allow the other decisions to be reversed.

Here’s a look at four Supreme Court decisions that could affect the Roe v. Wade reversal.

The US Supreme Court as it was formed from September 28, 1962 – July 26, 1965. Front Row (lr): Tom C. Clark, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren (Chief Justice), William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan. Previous row, (lr): Byron R. White, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, and Arthur J. Goldberg.

Griswold vs Connecticut

Widely seen as a precursor to Roe v. Wade, this 1965 decision repealed a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraception.

In 1961, Estelle Griswold, a Planned Parenthood official, and C. Lee Buxton, a Yale University gynecologist, were arrested and fined for operating a birth control clinic in Connecticut.

Both challenged their convictions, arguing that the Connecticut law violated their rights under the 14th Amendment.

In a 7-2 decision, the court found Connecticut’s law to be a violation of the constitutional “right to marital privacy.”

The decision paved the way for Roe v. Wade, according to Sutter.

“Roe relied heavily on the line of reasoning (in Griswold) and the type of actual due process,” she said.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, many liberals fear it may use the same logic to invalidate Roe’s predecessor.

Democratic Representative Jamie Ruskin, a constitutional scholar, last said, “If Casey[the1992opinionaffirmingabortionrights]is to fall, if Roe v. Wade is to fall, then Griswold v. Connecticut is also to fall.” week on MSNBC.

But while many conservatives have raised questions about the legal rationale behind the contraceptive decision, some expect an outright ban on birth control.

Instead, Fredrickson said, reversing the cry by increasingly describing forms of birth control as abortion or ‘abortion-like’ and allowing states to regulate access to them is “a rip-off (of the right to contraception). )” Maybe.

FILE - This January 26, 1965 file photo shows Mildred Loving and her husband, Richard P. Loving.  Bernard S. Cohen, who successfully challenged a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.

FILE – This January 26, 1965 file photo shows Mildred Loving and her husband, Richard P. Loving. Bernard S. Cohen, who successfully challenged a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.

Loving v. Virginia

Prior to this 1967 case, more than a dozen US states prohibited white people from marrying African Americans.

The historical case involved a black woman, Mildred Jeter, and a white man, Richard Loving. Unable to marry in his own state in 1958, he traveled to Washington, D.C.

He was arrested when he returned to Virginia under state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Tried and convicted, they were sentenced to one year in prison on the condition that they leave the state and not return as a married couple for 25 years.

The Supreme Court found that Virginia’s alleged anti-wrong law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court’s unanimous decision, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not to marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed upon by the state.”

“Going after Loving would be extreme,” Fredrickson said.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, considered the most conservative member of the court, is an African American and married to a white woman.

FILE - Tyrone Garner and John Lawrence arrive at the courthouse with one of their attorneys, Michelle Katin (lr), to face charges of homosexual conduct under Texas sodomy law, Houston, November 20, 1998.

FILE – Tyrone Garner and John Lawrence arrive at the courthouse with one of their attorneys, Michelle Katin (lr), to face charges of homosexual conduct under Texas sodomy law, Houston, November 20, 1998.

Lawrence vs Texas

A landmark ruling for gay rights, this 2003 ruling overturned a Texas law that criminalized gay sex, thereby repealing so-called “anti-sodomy laws” across the country.

In 1998, John Lawrence and a male partner were found having sex when police entered Lawrence’s apartment in response to a hoax call.

After being arrested and fined under Texas anti-sodomy law, the men challenged the statute as a violation of the equal protection clause.

Supreme Court accepted. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a prominent champion of LGBTQ rights in the court, wrote the majority opinion.

“The petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them full rights to engage in private conduct without government interference,” he wrote.

For LGBTQ rights activists, the decision, which overturned a 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding an anti-equal anti-sodomy law in Georgia, was a major victory.

Jim Obergafel, the named plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, center, talks on a cellphone with President Barack Obama on the Supreme Court's moves following the court's decision in Washington, DC, June 26, 2015.

Jim Obergafel, the named plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, center, talks on a cellphone with President Barack Obama on the Supreme Court’s moves following the court’s decision in Washington, DC, June 26, 2015.

Obergefels vs. Hodges

This 2015 ruling established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

The case was brought by a group of gay couples who were challenging state laws that did not allow them to legally marry.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states should allow same-sex couples to marry and recognize such marriages where they were legal.

Again, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “They demand equal respect in the eyes of the law. The Constitution gives them this right.”

Hailed as a major achievement for the LGBTQ community in America, the narrowly decided case is now in danger, Fredrickson said.

“I think there is a very serious disagreement with the Obergfels decision based on the common idea of ​​tradition in our society,” he said.

According to legal scholars, all six conservatives currently on the bench disagree with Obergfels’ decision. But whether they will join forces to reverse it is “another story,” Sutter said.

,

This article is republished from – Voa News – Read the – original article.

Nation World News Desk
Nation World News Deskhttps://nationworldnews.com
Nation World News is the fastest emerging news website covering all the latest news, world’s top stories, science news entertainment sports cricket’s latest discoveries, new technology gadgets, politics news, and more.
Latest news
Related news
- Advertisement -