3 ms·
I don't think that's true. They just ruled that the constitutional right to privacy is not sufficient for the Roe v Wade ruling.
by insanitybit 3y ago
I don't think that's true. They just ruled that the constitutional right to privacy is not sufficient for the Roe v Wade ruling.
- hedora 3y agohttps://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-... > The final decision was little changed from the leaked draft. Writing for the five-justice majority (with Chief Justice Roberts concurring only in the judgment), Justice Samuel Alito argued that the right to privacy is not specifically guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. When unenumerated liberty rights exist — the right to raise your child as you see fit, for example — those rights must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Reviewing the history of abortion restrictions in the early United States, Alito concluded that the right to abortion is not. > The opinion ignited a firestorm of controversy. Predictably so: Dobbs is arguably the first case to formally rescind a fundamental constitutional right. The opinion also failed to explain how its logic would not also result in the overturning of Griswold’s right to contraception or a series of other cases that rely on the same logic as Roe. These include Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which invalidated laws criminalizing same-sex intimate sexual conduct, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which recognized the right to marriage for same-sex couples.
- insanitybit 3y agoThank you.