Substitute while loading the actions of the article
Amy Martin was 14 when Rowe vs. Wade was decided by establishing the right to abortion, which she took for granted for nearly five decades. Martin was 56 when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, a right she benefited from when she married her 30-year-old partner last week.
And when the court overturned that first decision on Friday, with Judge Clarence Thomas writing that the court should reconsider cases granting LGBTQ rights, Martin was gripped by another horror that the second could also fall.
“What if gay marriage is the next thing?” Said Martin, 63, who recently retired from a law firm in Cleveland and whose health benefits come from his wife’s policies. “The fabric of our country and what is based, has been deleted. “
As the effects of the abortion court’s decision continued to resonate in a divided country on Saturday, many who condemned the decision expressed growing concern that it would not simply restrict access to abortion. Instead, they said they saw the decision as a turning point that could lead to the repeal of many other protections – racial and ethnic. minorities, gays and others – which are created on similar legal grounds as deer. This possibility is not just paranoid speculation, they noted: it was presented by several Supreme Court judges on Friday.
In interviews, many Americans have described concern that a nation proud of a hard-won expansion of protection for people never recognized by its white, male founders has begun to feel more like an unfamiliar land where established rights could melt into its most -high court. The outlook was even more troubling, some said, because polls show a majority of Americans support abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
“It’s like we woke up in the 1950s,” said Madison David, a 26-year-old masseuse who toured stalls at a farmers’ market in front of the Capitol building in Madison, Weiss, on Saturday morning. For weeks, she said she admired Lisa’s anthem “About Damn Time,” which David said she saw as an ode to the progress women and other historically oppressed groups have made. Now, she said, her decision has confirmed the need to prepare to fight for rights – even those that appear to have been provided by previous generations.
“We can’t be naive and think this is where it stops,” said David’s girlfriend, 27-year-old yoga teacher Aurora Guppy Weil.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., is based on the view that individual freedoms guaranteed by the 14th Amendment protect only rights that have “deep roots” in states when it was ratified in 1868. – a time when abortion was banned in many countries. Alito tried to say that the decision would not jeopardize precedents unrelated to abortion, which he said was different because it destroyed an “unborn human being” that the state also had an interest in defending.
But other judges clearly rejected his claim. In the same opinion, fellow Conservative Thomas said the precedents establishing contraceptive rights, same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy should be reconsidered. And the dissenting opinion, written by the court’s three liberals, refutes Alito’s assurances as false promises.
These other rights, dissidents write, are “all part of the same constitutional fabric,” noting that 19th-century laws also do not protect Supreme Court-recognized rights to interracial marriage or be sterilized without consent. They wrote that “they cannot understand how anyone can be sure that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind.”
This concern was supported by legal experts, who said the decision could jeopardize other past decisions based on the protection of personal liberty and related privacy rights recognized by the court.
“The court has said for a long, long time, ‘Look, if we define freedom only in terms of what was allowed at the time of Bill’s ratification of rights or the 14th Amendment, then we are blocked in time,'” Scott Skinner-Thompson said. Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Because in the 18th and 19th centuries this country was not very free for many, many people – especially for women, especially for people of color.”
Although Thomas’s consensus does not mention it, the ruling may even jeopardize the right to interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court recognized in its 1967 judgment. Love against Virginiasaid Skinner-Thompson. (Thomas, who is black, is married to a white woman.)
“Thomas’ potential remark would be that this violates the equal protection clause because it is discrimination based on race,” Skinner-Thompson said. The problem is that if you take the originalists’ interpretation for real value and say, “What were the practices of this country during the ratification of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War?” Guess what? There was racial discrimination everywhere. Divided but equal, it continued at a rapid pace for more than a century. “
The first post-deer the morning rose sunny in Pittsburgh, where Bloomfielders were completing their typical Saturday morning outdoor shopping. But some who filled their bags with cucumbers, jars of sauerkraut and bunches of pink peonies told themselves that nothing seemed normal or normal in the last 24 hours.
“I didn’t think it was going to happen in my life or someone else’s, really,” said Kathleen McHugh, 28, a white management consultant who was with her partner, Alex Klinestiver, 30, who is Black. “People who decide this are completely unaffected by the consequences,” she told Klinestiver when she heard about the decision on Friday. “And now Thomas is trying to change other things we expect to know.”
This prospect has already prompted Rachel Christian, 29, and her wife, Vanya Christian, 36, to discuss their next steps. After learning of Thomas’ explicit references to same-sex marriage and intimacy as potential targets, the Baltimore couple agreed to proceed with the official adoption of their 11-month-old daughter, Liesel, who is resting in her stroller at the city’s Pride Parade on Saturday. in the afternoon. while 4-year-old sister Athena relaxed in a car.
If their marriage was annulled, they decided, they needed the strongest possible proof that they were both Liesel’s parents – despite the fact that Vanya had provided the embryo and Rachel had given birth to Liesel. “After yesterday, we are like, maybe now we need to rethink. Because no one imagined that this would happen, and it happened, “Vanya said.
Rainbow flags and dance music erupted in a joyous celebration around the family. But the sense of seriousness and urgency was reflected in the signs reading “Forbidden to our bodies.”
“It’s a beautiful thing today. But in the back, if you think in your mind, what will the future look like? Said Rachel Christian.
In New York, Kyle Fowler, a housing attorney who specializes in housing, had lunch in a public square in the Theater District and Hell’s Kitchen, and said he he feared that the decision might ultimately cost him the right to marry another man. While he and other lawyers he knows have long feared the consequences of such a decision, it is “an insight for many people,” Fowler said.
“At every meeting [former president Donald] “Trump turned to the Supreme Court, I felt that all these things were in danger,” Fowler said, adding that the appointments had built a “slippery slope” and overturned. deer “I felt like an inevitability.”
Julie Taylor, 55, describes herself as a Christian and supports abortion in limited circumstances, such as rape, incest and maternal safety. But Taylor, who was in Jack London Square nearby a coastal street in Oakland, California, on Saturday said it wanted abortion to remain accessible to women “because it’s their bodies.”
The rollover of Rowe vs. Wade directs the country in the wrong direction, Taylor said. “We are going back in time. It is never good to come back. It is as if we are returning to slavery. The women are now second-class citizens. We fought so hard to get to this point, and now you are bringing us back. “
And Taylor, who is black, said she feared other rights were also at stake. “Here’s the deal: You’re taking away their freedom. My freedom is next, “she said. “You never know when they’re after you.”
Martin, a retiree from Ohio, said the decision – and the political and legal winds she was taking – worried her so much that she felt happy to be “at this point in my life because I wouldn’t want to live another 20 years.” or 30 years – it will be a long time before we see a change in the right direction… I think it will be much worse before it gets better. “
However, others said the decision was stimulating. Mary Kay Watson, who works in the automotive industry and lives north of Detroit, said she has long considered political candidates’ views on abortion as one of many considerations. The right of procedure seemed firm, she said.
But Friday’s decision – which she said worries could affect her two daughters’ ability to receive medical care if one of them had a miscarriage in a state where abortion is banned – changed that.
“For me personally, I’m done. I’m removing, “Let’s look at what man as a whole is,” said Watson, 56. If you’re against the choice, you’re not my choice. Period.”
Emmanuel Felton in Madison, Wisconsin, Sylvia Foster-Frau in Baltimore, Shine Jacobs in New York, Catherine Cam in Oakland, California, Dan Simmons in St. Paul, Minnesota and Christine Spolar in Pittsburgh contributed to this report.
Add Comment