BASED Alito and Thomas pen Post-Roe Pathway

In the immediate aftermath, 13 states with trigger laws which have already begun taking effect. Five states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, have bans that predate Roe v Wade which could take effect in what might become a heated state court battle. Look for the democrat judges in those state be eager to enshrine abortion as a right in face of preexisting law. Most states in middle America and the Deep South will likely enact some form of outright bans, including Ron DeSantis’s Florida, which only enacted a 15-week ban. Passage of an outright ban in Florida would be a massive boon to the governor. The rest of the states, particularly those on the coasts, will become havens for evil as Planned Parenthood downsizes its operations to just those states most tolerating to its practices. The issue of abortion will create two America’s, but that is not all it does.

Alito Delivers

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” (13)

This matches the leaked draft. One of Alito’s primary contentions is that interpreting rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights and the 14^th Amendment should only be extended to matters consistent with the common law tradition. So one can infer that even though there was no internet in 1789 that the first amendment should still protect online speech. That even though muskets and cannons were protected under the 2^nd Amendment at its origination, the same protections apply to semi-automatics. Doctor-patient confidentiality would be protected under the Bill of Rights, as it is derived from English Common Law and therefore its protection is in accordance with American tradition.

We begin by considering the critical question whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion. Skipping over that question, the controlling opinion in Casey reaffirmed Roe’s “central holding” based solely on the doctrine of stare decisis, but as we will explain, proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which Roe was based. (16)

As he will go on to explain, the basis and logic behind Roe was inherently flawed. Alito contends that stare decisis is the norm of judicial rulings, not a “inexorable command” going further to declare that it is the weakest form of justification when it alone is the basis for opinion, as was the case in Casey.

At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining States would soon follow. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight. (24)

Abortion was never protected under American law until Roe v Wade. Most states had criminalized it consistent with Common Law tradition. Therefore, there is no basis for protections of abortion in the Constitution. Moreover, criminalizing abortion is consistent with Common Law.

Many Christians, whether genuine or “so-called,” are bothered by the idea of criminalizing abortion. Those who are disturbed by this notion are outside the norm of American history and American Christianity. It is internalized liberalism, mainly feminism, that pro-life Big Baby institutions label women victims of abortion. Institutions that are supposed to be pro-life, like ERLC, March For Life, and National Right to Life have all adopted feminism rather than the biblical standard in their reasoning. This is what happens when we are decades removed and living in a post-Christian society.

It is Open Season. Laws like HB 813 in Louisiana should become the norm on abortion. As Planned Parenthood voluntarily shutters its factories in Red States, laws deputizing citizens to sue those who aid murderous mothers should be enacted, just as the Texas Heartbeat Law does (or did). Numerous corporations have already announced programs to assist these women in crossing state lines. Punish them.

Clarence Thomas Provides a Path

In the official opinion of the court, Alito opened the door to a Post-Roe America, explicitly articulating why it not only is bad precedent, but limiting the scope by which rights not enumerated in the constitution can be expanded. This ruling was a rebuke of judicial activism, yet the logic applied is not limited to just Roe.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana… [We] have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States…After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. (119, Citations omitted from quote)

Many on the left rightfully understood the shots Thomas was taking. Unfortunately, there are fake conservatives like David French and those on the right like Steven Crowder who falsely asserted that Thomas is not targeting the precedents of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, despite calling them out by name. As an aside, Griswold protects contraceptives to married couples, Lawrence overturned anti-sodomy laws and the criminalization of homosexuality, and Obergefell was gay marriage. One does not simply name drop cases for no reason, and Thomas opens the door for those cases to be reconsidered and cases for conservatives to target.

Reversing Gay Marriage is the simplest of these cases to comprehend, as it is also the most recent. Even John Roberts was in the dissent while pro-homo and pro-abortion Catholic Anthony Kennedy gave us Casey and Obergefell. With him out of the picture, there are potentially five votes in favor of overturning Obergefell. Conservatives should leap at the opportunity to reverse gay marriage under the premise that Alito and Thomas suggests, as two dudes playing house was never in line with the American tradition and most states had marriage amendments at the time the courts ruled. Same circumstances, different issue.

Griswold is the most indirect of the cases which should be targeted, not because married women (exclusively) should be barred contraceptives, but because of the implications on abortion. Admittedly, I do not think there should be a legal distinction on availability of any medical procedure on basis of marital status. However, in a nation where abortifacients are widely available on Amazon or through telehealth services, states that restrict the abortion factories should naturally target medication-based abortions. The increasing commonality of mifepristone now accounts for 54% of all abortions. As a reminder that means the mother is the abortionist in this scenario as these are pills swallowed to induce an abortion. States attempting to prohibit abortion pills would likely face opposition clinging to Griswold as their stare decisis. Since there were enough votes on Dobbs, and enough support for even stricter laws like the Texas Heartbeat Law, the “rights” established in Griswold could be effaced on the issue of abortion.

Lawrence would be the most difficult yet ambitious precedent to overturn, and lacking Roberts and Gorsuch, who legislated the Equality Act from the bench, is unlikely to be challenged nor is there five votes on this issue. Moreover, Obergefell must be dealt with first as that case was the direct result of Lawrence. Nevertheless, sodomy was historically banned under the Common Law tradition and homosexual activities subject to criminality. Just as pornography is not free speech, neither is anal sex between two dudes free expression.

Conclusion

By all means we should celebrate the victory achieved on the overturning of Roe v Wade. Through multiple generations, it took 50 years to reverse this grave wickedness in our society. In the early decades, the pro-life movement was sandbagged by grifter operations which sought to fundraise on the issue without meaningful action, but as a new crop of pro-lifers arose through the states, real change was achieved. The Lord used imperfect men as Donald Trump to bring about this day.

Yet let it also serve as a reminder of the work that needs to be done. There are still plenty of fronts in this war, and the abortion battle is not over yet. We still must overcome those who proactively subvert our efforts and will oppose us, not only in outlawing abortion but on the aforementioned issues as well. The work has just begun!