The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday to overturn the 50-year-old Roe v. Wade, a landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide. However, in the same ruling, the Supreme Court mentioned that other rulings should be reconsidered — including those that have to do with contraception and marriage rights.
“We should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’”
Justice Thomas said that the court has the “duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” Those “precedents” which are included in Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell include the protection of contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP, file)AP
Paul Collins, a University of Massachusetts professor of legal studies, thought this might be true after reading the leaked opinion earlier this year.
“When you read the leaked opinion, it’s not hard to conclude that the court will take steps to restrict freedoms concerning the right to privacy,” said Collins.
The right to privacy covers a vast array of personal freedoms, including the right to make medical decisions and the right to engage in consensual sexual conduct in the privacy of the home.
“The draft opinion says it pertains only to abortion rights but there are reasons to believe that is not the case,” he said. “This opinion is significant not only in that it would overrule Roe v. Wade but also in that the legal logic can be applied to take away a variety of rights that the Supreme Court has found since the 1960s.
“It’s not at all challenging to read Justice Alito’s opinion and see that it could be used to overrule marriage equality, sexual privacy and it can be read to allow states to restrict contraceptives.”
More:
Officials react to Roe v. Wade rule with anger and joy, depending on their party affiliation
Abortion opponents applaud Roe decision, vow to work to overturn Pa. law