The consensus of Supreme Court observers after Wednesday’s plea in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is it the disappearance of Roe vs. Wade, or at least its dilution to the point that virtually any government-imposed “burden” on abortion would be constitutionally acceptable, is yet to come. After all, this court cleared a Texas law effectively banning most abortions after six weeks of being in litigation, dismissing several pleas for temporary stay – a signal as clear as any it is. at least five judges of the current court have no problem with the constitutionality of women. rights (as currently recognized) being violated in the meantime.
Many of the dangers of cancellation Roe deer have long been discussed. If women lose the right to abortion, it is estimated that pregnancy-related deaths will increase dramatically and suddenly. (Currently, 26 states have so-called trigger laws on the books that would ban most abortions by the time the court overturns Roe deer.) The impact of Roe deerLast year’s fall would hit low-income women particularly hard, as they are five times more likely than wealthy women to have unplanned children and twice as likely to experience sexual violence.
These are the dangers of restricting access to abortion. The point is that the dangers of doing without Roe deer go far beyond abortion, as the legal logic that threatens this particular right could quite easily spread to others, prompting states to try new laws that regulate choices about who to marry, who to be with. intimate, what contraception to use and how to raise your own children.
The assertion that Roe deer is only built on a sand foundation ignores the inconvenient fact that many other rights are not expressly stated in the Constitution. The question that a reversal of Roe deer therefore, begs the question of whether the “textualists” and “originalists” of this conservative-heavy court would also allow these implicit rights to be overridden.
Most people get attached Roe deerthe legal foundations of the right to privacy identified in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling overturning state laws that made the use of contraceptives illegal by married couples. The Court ultimately identified a constitutional “right to privacy” among the protective “shadows” that emanate from the Bill of Rights – in particular the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments – and held that these shadows were intended to protect “a husband and wife relationship and the role of their physician in some aspect of that relationship” from government intrusion. Picking up on Griswold in 1973, the Court of Roe deer acknowledged that “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy,” but took advantage of the previous case’s recognition of a “guarantee of certain areas or areas of privacy” to repeal a Texas law criminalizing abortion.
Deploring the analytical shortcomings of Roe deerThe late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a constitutional champion for gender equality, noted that critics “accused the court of reading its own values into the due process clause.” (In her view, “the court presented an incomplete rationale for its decision” and should have added “a distinct theme of gender discrimination” to its balance between fetal and maternal interests.) These accusations continued, culminating in the Dobbs case, which results in a reversal of Roe deer, despite the fact that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum favor some measure of access to safe and legal abortion.
Corn Griswold was not the Court’s first word on the scope of “liberty” under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects individuals from arbitrary government deprivation of “life, liberty or property” without stating with precision what the word freedom actually means. In a series of cases beginning in the early 1920s, the court created a safe space for family, marriage, and children that the government is prevented from regulating. A decline of Roe deer could open that sphere if the conservative theory that implicit rights are constitutionally invalid takes hold and states begin to pass draconian laws that creep into other areas of intimate personal life.
Consider the case of 1923 Meyer vs. Nebraska, in which the court struck down a law criminalizing the teaching of German in private schools. “The obvious purpose of this law,” the court wrote, “was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children raised in this state.” Although its enactment “falls reasonably within the police power of the State”, the Court found that the law “unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the complainant in error by the Fourteenth Amendment” – the precise basis of the individual right. now precarious in deciding whether to carry a fetus to term. Two years later, in Pierce c. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, the court struck down an Oregon criminal law requiring parents to send their children to public school. The “clear objective” of the law, the court noted, “is to compel normal children, between the ages of eight and sixteen, who have not completed eighth grade, to attend public schools. Quoting Meyer, the Court ruled: “We think it is quite clear that the 1922 law unreasonably interferes with the freedom of parents and guardians to direct the education and upbringing of children. “
The Court interpreted the liberty to protect many other safe personal spaces: the right to marry without distinction of race (years 1967 Love c. Virginia) and sex (2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges). The right to use contraception (Griswold). The right not to be sterilized by the state (years 1942 SKinner vs. Oklahoma). The right not to undergo government-mandated surgery involving “a virtually total divestment of the respondent’s ordinary control over the surgical probing under his skin” (circa 1985 Winston vs. Lee). And the right to have intimate sex with a partner of one’s choice without fear of criminal prosecution (2003 Lawrence v. Texas).
In Dobbs, the state of Mississippi’s response to this series of cases is to suggest that the life of an unborn fetus is particularly sacred under the Constitution: a human life, ”he said. But saying so doesn’t mean that critics of other privacy-based rights couldn’t find their own reasons why those rights must also be weighed against other competing interests.
So say that Roe deer is a unique constitutional blunder, built on a fragile foundation, while other rights are set in stone, is a myth – and a dangerous one. Nothing in the Constitution says anything to specifically protect the ability of couples to choose to have sex, use contraception, get married, decide how to educate their children, refuse bodily inspection, or medical treatment and, yes, terminating a pregnancy. From a legal point of view, if Roe deer falls, it’s hard to see what else will still be standing.