HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » What the Supreme Court’s ...

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 08:26 AM

What the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights

Crossposted in GD. The article is only 4 paragraphs, so it's all here.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/26/what_the_supreme_courts_marriage_equality_ruling_means_for_reproductive_rights/

There’s a little Easter egg in Friday’s marriage equality ruling that could have major repercussions for reproductive rights activists — if and when the Supreme Court takes up the issue of abortion again.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy references the interplay of “personal choice” as it relates to same-sex marriage. But, in doing so, he also acknowledges the way individual autonomy relates to other life decisions, such as the right to use contraception or have a baby:

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. …Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.


Let’s string some things together here: “choices concerning contraception…procreation, and childrearing…are protected by the Constitution.” It’s a single line, but it’s no throwaway — especially not in a SCOTUS decision that affirms equal access to happiness and control over one’s own life. It could set a precedent that’s invaluable to the fight to secure reproductive rights once and for all.

7 replies, 1908 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply What the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights (Original post)
gollygee Jun 2015 OP
Thespian2 Jun 2015 #1
Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #2
Panich52 Jun 2015 #3
Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #5
Warren DeMontague Jun 2015 #7
ismnotwasm Jun 2015 #4
Gman Jun 2015 #6

Response to gollygee (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:37 AM

1. Maybe another case

will cause a future court to revisit constitutional law regarding abortion...the RWNJ attacks on women have been extremely heinous...chipping away at the rights to a safe termination by doctors...we are all aware that abortions are ALWAYS available to the Filthy Rich and Right Wing Peddlers of HATE...the 1% do not like women having rights, especially poor and middle-class women...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:52 AM

2. Maybe this is why Roberts reluctantly disagreed.

 

He didn't want to support a precedent of the constitution trumping abortion restrictions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:05 AM

3. Idea of a constitutional right to privacy, one of the bases of Roe, is seen by many as a weakness in

that decision. So-called originalists deny that right exists. Kennedy's bolstering of the idea does help counter nay-sayers.

(rec'f here & will do same in GD)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panich52 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:10 AM

5. In that case, it might even refelct on online privacy.

 

Or am I taking the scope of the verdict's implications too far now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panich52 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:52 PM

7. Yes, but every time it is reaffirmed in a scotus decision, the right gets more

Established in precedence.

This is a good thing for all the decisions- Roe being one, Lawrence v. texas another- which build on the "penumbra" language establishing privacy rights in Griswold.

This is why when anti-choicers really get their legal shorts in a twist, it is Griswold they rail against. Because that is how far back they need to go to undue all the supreme court's social progress that has followed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:08 AM

4. I wonder if that explains the truly execrable dissensions?

Because they were practically babble for presemably intelligent, well-educated Supreme Court justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:31 AM

6. I don't think Kenedy was being prescient

I think he purposefully inserted that anticipating future , like next year, cases.

I haven't had the time to read the decision, but that's a great find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread