An existential threat

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images

The three liberals on the court, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, issued a joint dissent. They wrote that the court had long held a balance between the many differing opinions of Americans on abortion, issuing a variety of decisions that allowed some limits to be set on the procedure but not allowing an undue burden to be placed upon a woman who might seek it.

“Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, 

a woman has no rights to speak of,” the justices wrote.

They're not done. Privacy, sodomy laws, same sex marriage and contraception are next along with a nation wide ban on abortion. As stated before, the ramifications of gutting Roe is an existential threat to America. 

In a terrifying concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the case the court used as a pretext to overturn Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that now that the court’s conservative goon squad has done away with the national right to an abortion, it should think about scrapping the rulings that protect contraception, same-sex marriage, and same-sex sexual activity. Arguing that all decisions that previously fell under “due process precedents”—a concept he claims is an “oxymoron” that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution”—are bunk, Thomas writes: “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Griswold was the landmark decision in which the court said that the Constitution protects the right of married couples to buy and use contraception. Lawrence, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, made same-sex sexual activity legal. Obergefell said same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.

Any questions?