A new eraHigh court justices confirmhistory no longer is relevant

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade might not be surprising, but it is no less shocking.

The crux of the opinion became known when an early draft of the ruling was published in May and Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed its authenticity. The official ruling released Friday has sent both liberals and conservatives scrambling.

The ruling, written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, asserts that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overturned, and the authority to regulate abortion must be overturned to the people and their elected representatives.”

Texas and other states already have abortion bans on the books in anticipation for Friday’s ruling. The fallout of the decision will be seen in the weeks to come.

Roe v. Wade had been interpreted to hold that a woman’s right to privacy is one of the Constitution’s fundamental rights, and that privacy covers decisions a woman makes regarding her pregnancy. The application of the 14th Amendment, ruling that all women have the same right, was the basis of that decision. Friday’s decision rejects the amendment’s universal application of any laws with regard to abortion, whether they apply to the rights of the woman or to the fetus.

The ruling also seems to confirm the fears that many have had, that this court has little regard for the centuries-old legal principle of stare decisis, or the respect for decisions made by previous courts.

Many conservatives have counted on the Supreme Court’s willingness to ignore precedent, and have either filed lawsuits challenging old decisions or passed laws that openly defied those decisions on voting rights, abortion and other matters. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case challenging a Mississippi abortion ban that challenged Roe, brought Friday’s decision.

The court’s conservative majority’s apparent willingness to overturn past decisions not only has emboldened conservatives, but alarmed liberals who believe decades of work to secure civil rights could be wiped out with a few key decisions. The perception already has led Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to insist that the court hasn’t devolved into a bunch of “partisan hacks,” as Coney Barrett called it.

However, her words are contradicted by those of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who already is embroiled in controversy caused by his wife’s involvement in the Jan. 5, 2021, riot at the Capitol. In a concurrent opinion to Friday’s ruling, Thomas openly invited further challenges to past decisions.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, referring to past cases that invalidated laws against contraception and homosexuality.

One thing is apparent: Friday’s ruling, and especially the language that was chosen to announce it, makes it clear that we no longer can have confidence in the strength of past Supreme Court rulings.