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

[gollygee]

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.

[Thespian2]

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...

[Betty Karlson]

2. Maybe this is why Roberts reluctantly disagreed.

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

[Panich52]

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)

[Betty Karlson]

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?

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[ismnotwasm]

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

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

[Gman]

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.