Thomas Calls for Overturning Other Precedents in Dobbs Opinion
As expected, on Friday morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue of abortion regulation back to individual states.
The opinion states, “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Chief Justice Roberts issued a separate concurrence, stating he would have simply upheld the Mississippi law to ban abortion after 15 weeks without overturning Roe v. Wade.
Justice Clarence Thomas also issued a separate concurring opinion that called for overturning other similarly set precedents.
Thomas notes that the decision does not directly effect any others besides Roe v. Wade, but he argued that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure substantive rights and urged the court to apply its reasoning in Dobbs to future reviews of landmark cases.
Citing three specifically, he wrote, “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Griswold v. Connecticut established that married couples have a right to access contraception. The court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And Obergefell v. Hodge established the right to same-sex marriage.
This story is developing and will be updated as information becomes available.
Federalism MUST be re-established. The Feds should get out of state matters – compeletely, and that ESPECIALLY concerns the Supreme Court. And this should be done retroactively, as well.
LOL..as the idiot in the WH want to overturn the decision.
The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights confer a right to abortion. The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people of the states and their elected representatives.
The Consitution is VERY CLEAR that anything NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED and DEFINED AS a FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY IS RELEGATED TO THE STATES ALONE.
Remember, the word STATE MEANS COUNTRY. Each state is its OWN COUNTRY and the FEDERATION is ONLY for VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND IS BY LAW LIMITED. IT CAN NOT CREATE LAW FEDERALLY ABOUT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS ITS DUTY.
WhileI understand that these things really may not be the purview of he federal government under he Constitution, doing away with contraception, same sex marriage and interracial marriage will cause an uproar which will make the Roe vs Wade decision look like child’s play. Before such a thing undertaken, maybe it would be better if legislation on either the federal or state level be done to codify the legality of these three concerns!