Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, in essence overturning the court’s ruling in Casey, while leaving in place the right to an abortion in Roe. Casey, which itself moved beyond Roe’s initial trimester framework for regulating abortion.Īt arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions suggesting they supported overturning the right to abortion nationwide, leaving the issue up to individual states. The current Supreme Court abortion case specifically concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks - before the “viability” standard set in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Obergefell, moreover, relies on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause as well as the right to privacy. It stands in contrast to abortion, which is usually “a response to unplanned circumstances,” Collett said. Thomas School of Law and director of its Prolife Center.Ĭourts are usually loath to undo that kind of precedent. Obergefell is different from Roe in that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples have relied on it to wed and created legal bonds, like shared property, inheritance rights and “settled expectations about the future,” said Teresa Collett, a professor at the University of St. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” “We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage, are based at least in part on that same right to privacy.Īlito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy, and Obergefell v. Connecticut, which said that a right to privacy exists that bars states from interfering in married couples’ right to buy and use contraceptives.Ĭases like Lawrence v. The president said he believed the conservative justices on today’s court would, like failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987, disagree with the court’s ruling in Griswold v. The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, argues that unenumerated constitutional rights - those not explicitly mentioned in the document - must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” And it says abortion doesn’t meet that standard.īiden and others are sounding alarms that the same logic could be used to toss out other protections. The draft’s potentially sweeping impact could be tempered by the other justices, or it could emerge largely unchanged - with what advocates and Biden say could bring even more severe consequences. So while the eventual ruling in the abortion case appears all but assured, the written rationale - and its implications - may still be a hotly debated subject inside the court’s private chambers.
“What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in recent American history,” Biden said.Ĭourt opinions can change in ways big and small throughout the drafting process.
“This is about a lot more than abortion,” President Joe Biden warned Wednesday, saying the court’s draft opinion could jeopardize same-sex marriage, access to contraception and LGBTQ rights. The draft’s provocative rhetoric also is generating concern that LGTBQ advances and other matters based on the right to privacy could be vulnerable in a newly hostile political environment. But uncertainty abounds about ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.Ī leaked first draft of the majority opinion in the case, authenticated Tuesday by the Supreme Court, suggests that a majority of justices are poised to toss out Roe. WASHINGTON (AP) - Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v.