Experts have “a total fear” that after women’s rights are cut, gay rights will follow

“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or incorrectly defined, we emphasize that our decision is about the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be intended to question precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Judge Alito in a leaked draft opinion on the Mississippi heartbeat law

*

Obviously, there is no part of the Constitution that states: “A woman must have bodily autonomy, including access to safe abortion services in consultation with a doctor.” Such a clause could be added, but it will not be in the foreseeable future. There is, however, a clause in the 14th Amendment which reads;

“No state can enact or enforce any law that deprives a person of life, liberty or property, without due legal process.”

Court conservatives have always tested how progressive judges interpret the fair trial clause and seem ready to overturn one of its greatest cornerstones, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy over abortion.

The due process clause has a procedural aspect that requires the government to provide you with “notice” and a “significant opportunity to be heard”. But it has another pole, “substantive due process”, which is at the heart of the controversy. Connecticut originally outlawed a married couple’s right to birth control. Everyone believed it had to be unconstitutional. There was just nothing in the Constitution that really addressed such an intrusive law. Progressive judges have developed a “substantive” aspect of due process to support the claim that there are certain aspects of a person’s life that are so private, so personal, and so fundamental to one’s being that the state cannot regulate that. aspect of one’s life, there is no “due process”.

Conservatives hate him, and when Alito writes that Roe was “brilliantly decided from the start,” this is what he means, regardless of whether he expressly states it or not.

Now, according to the New York Times and Axios Monday AM, legal scholars fear the loss of more women’s rights, also fearing that many LGBTQ issues are now in limbo, especially gay marriage.

From the NY Times:

The opinion of Judge Samuel A Alito Jr., has provided mixed signals on its scope and consequences. On the one hand, he stated, in a sort of disclaimer which took on a defensive tone, that the other rights would remain ensured.

“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or incorrectly defined, we emphasize that our decision is about the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be intended to question precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Of course, to believe Alito, one must be willing to believe that the three judges who sat before the Senate judicial commission and promised to respect “stare decisis”, legal doctrine, “the thing is decided” and leave Roe in place. They all lied, there is no other word for that. Alito is not lying by saying “nothing this decision should question… ”It is a willingness to overturn the long-standing SCOTUS doctrine based on the substantive fair trial clause of the 14th Amendment that scares women, the LGBTQ family, and every liberal, at some level. Also from the Times:

Judge Alito, for his part, did not hide his hostility Obergefell v. Hodges2015 same-sex marriage decision. In 2020, when the court dismissed the appeal of a county employee who was being sued refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, he joined a written statement from Justice Clarence Thomas who called the decision contrary to the Constitution.

“In Obergefell c. Hodge, ” the statement said“the court read the right to same-sex marriage in the 14th amendment, even though that right is nowhere to be found in the text.”

Right. And now the two judges are joined by three more, all nominated by Trump, who lost by 2.9 million votes (and Gorsuch’s seat was stolen from Obama, while Coney-Barrett’s seat seemed stolen from Biden).

The most chilling. Not only are these five judges hostile to the idea of ​​substantive due process and all the freedoms that come with it, but there are also two final points to note. First, what future advances in progressive activism have actually been cut? Secondly, given that the Court has shown a willingness to overturn two cases affirming the right to abortion, what rights could subsequently be overturned?