Alito does not want your contraceptives


The political campaign to save Roe vs. Wade includes urgent warnings about all other historical precedents that are now allegedly under threat. Listen instead to Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, who supports abortion rights but is honest enough to rain down on this implausible parade of horribles.

“Lib law professors, you’re just trying to scare people with boogeymen or something like ‘Oh, my God, Griswold is in danger,” Mr Amar said on his podcast last week, referring to the 1965 High Court precedent protecting access to contraception for married couples. “Every Republican Party platform for the past 40 years has said ‘we hate roe deer”, he retorted. “There’s never been anything quite like this about Griswold.”

Mr Amar quoted University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, who co-wrote a column claiming contraceptives could be on the Roberts Court chopping block. “Steve Vladeck, you are my student. You are my friend,” Mr. Amar told his podcast audience. “What you’re saying is nonsense. OK? I’m calling you b— on you.

How can Mr. Amar be sure? In his opinion, Griswold is a 9-0, “easy and obvious” case, under the Court’s current approach of recognizing unlisted rights that are “deeply rooted”. He also pointed out that the Tory justices were clear in their confirmation hearings on Griswoldcontrary to their distrust of abortion and roe deer.

Chief Justice John Roberts: “I agree with the Griswold The Court’s finding that marital privacy extends to contraception. »

Justice Clarence Thomas: “Ultimately, I felt there was a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the spousal right to privacy, of course, is at the heart of that.”

Judge Samuel Alito: “The Griswold the case, likewise, concerns a matter which is not likely to come before the courts. As for Eisenstadt v. Baird (1971), which extended contraceptive rights to unmarried couples: “I agree with the result Eisenstadt.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch: “I can’t imagine any state trying to pass a law in this area, and I said I can’t imagine the Supreme Court of the United States taking such a law seriously. “

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “I agree with Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett: “I think Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere. In order to Griswold to be overturned, you or a state legislature will have to pass a law prohibiting the use of birth control, which seems shockingly unlikely.

Mr. Amar’s conclusion? “Seriously, it’s not even, as a good faith argument, that they’re actually trying to put Griswold at stake,” he said. “America will not move forward if we continue to completely misrepresent what others are saying and why.”

***

The left, however, is looking everywhere for a politician willing, or stupid enough, to suggest a ban on contraception. CNN asked Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and he got no response: “While I’m sure there will be conversations around America about this, it’s not something which we spent a lot of time focusing on.” Mr Reeves later said he was ‘surprised’ at the question as the contraceptive ban had not emerged as an issue in his condition.

There will undoubtedly be some debate about whether certain types of contraception, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), are more than contraceptive, as they could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting or surviving. This argument circulated in 2011, when Mississippi voted on a constitutional amendment to define personality as beginning at the “time of fertilization.” It failed 58% to 42%.

For the record, Mr Reeves’ office tells us that “popular birth control methods like IUDs and the morning after pill are not being considered for further restrictions”. The real question that Washington sometimes debates is whether to make the pill available without a prescription.

To examine, conservative Supreme Court justices have publicly stated that they support a legal basis for Griswold in a way that they have not been Roe vs. Wade. As for politics, the governor of Mississippi, one of the reddest states in the country, says he has no interest in banning IUDs or Plan B. But don’t expect facts to stand in the way. a narrative intended to scare voters and discredit the Supreme Court.

Journal Editorial Report: Are Democrats in tune with the nation’s views on abortion? Images: Bloomberg News Composition: Mark Kelly

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8


Wj

Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.
Back to top button