USA
This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

Shows that same-sex marriage and contraceptive rights are at stake after Clarence Thomas overturns Roe v. Wade

InHis opinionisRoev. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the constitutional abortion rights established in Wade, Judge Clarence Thomas said that the High Court has all cases built on similar legal grounds. It says it needs to be revisited. 12}

All three cases, and many other groundbreaking decisions, are based on the rights of substantive due process found in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, where the government "life, freedom". , Or property without due process of law. "

In 1973, the Supreme Court protected a woman's right to abortion before the fetus became viable. We have determined that it is a procedural clause. This is the time when the fetus can survive outside the womb around the 24th week of pregnancy. .. Since the leaked draft opinion previewed the overthrow ofRoein May, progressives could be threatened with other rights rooted in the substantive due process as well. I'm ringing a warning that there is.

Read more:The Supreme Court overturns the Law vs. Wade case and revokes the constitutional right to abortion

Majority Judge Samuel Arito, announced on Friday, said the Supreme Court had clearly stated that it "should be understood to cast doubt on cases unrelated to abortion," and these concerns. I tried to relieve. There was a majority opinion, but he wrote another agreement, arguing that all other decisions under the Due Process Clause should be reviewed by the Supreme Court,Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization {26. } Is the first of a wave of incidents that overturns an important precedent. (Agreement explains the reasoning of justice, but it is not legally binding.)

"There is no guarantee of abortion in the Due Process Clause, the second, more fundamental reason. To emphasize, I'm writing it separately, "writes Thomas. "As I explained earlier," substantive due process "is an oxymoron that" lacks a constitutional basis. " "Thomas says that it doesn't matter who" life, freedom, or "property" really embraces those rights. Therefore, the text of the Due Process Clause itself "does not guarantee substantive rights," including the right to abortion, he says. Therefore, he argues that the Supreme Court "needs to revisit all the precedents of this court's substantive due process."

The argument Thomas made in his previous work is a major departure from the way the Supreme Court has historically approached the right to due process. For a century and a half, courts have interpreted the amendments to Articles 5 and 14 to protect the substantive rights of people and have increased the list of freedoms entitled to protection. These rights include the right to contraception (Griswold vs. Connecticut,1965), same-sex consensus (Lawrence v. Texas,2003). It is included. Same-sex marriage with(Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)-Thomas explicitly named in his opinion that it was worth revisiting.

Thomas's agreement is "an ominous preview of how far the Supreme Court could undermine existing constitutionally protected rights," said Yale Law School's reproductive justice instructor. Catherine L. Crashell insists. "There's something we might take for granted, but it's no longer guaranteed."

But Sarah Partial Perry, Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Calls attention. She concludes that the majority of judges are committed to due process because Thomas's consent is not binding and no other judge has joined it, from certain fundamental rights. He states that he believes in protection.

According to other legal experts, it is still controversial as to what these rights really are. Alito wrote inDobbsthat this decision should not necessarily affect other cases, but this opinion isGriswoldandObergefell. We have adopted a methodology that suggests that a case like this was erroneously determined. Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, says. Arito argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in American history and tradition, and that contraception and the right to same-sex marriage may be discussed in the same way.

Read more:The battle for abortion has just begun

DobbsThe Supreme Court has rejected for the first time since the 1930s protections rooted in substantive due process, opening the door to overturning other rights rooted in similar legal principles, the University of Virginia Roach said. Professor Bertral Ross argues. Law. Prior to Dobbs, the court responded to changes in social movements and public opinion, among other factors, in deciding whether due process clauses protected rights. Explains. Because the Constitution is free-form, the debate goes on and the High Court can incorporate into the Constitution any rights that are not explicitly stated, such as the right to marry or the right to privacy.

However, the decision of Dobbsstates that "the majority of courts today are much more interested in history and what it means when the Constitution and its provisions are ratified. It shows that. "Furthermore, the majority of this court does not seem to consider itself bound by precedent. As a result, all proceedings that protect substantive rights under the Due Process Clause are the Supreme Court. Seems to be a fair game to revisit and revoke. "

" The courts are on a catastrophic path, "said Lawrence, Professor of Constitution at Harvard University.・ Tribe insists.

Madeleine Carlisle (madeleine.carlisle@time.com) and Julia Zorthian (julia.zorthian@time.com

) Please contact us.