You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Roe v. Wade is based on the 'right to privacy.' If the majority opinion by SCOTUS suggests that the constitution does not protect the right to privacy... that affects a WHOLE lot of other decisions. Buckle up - this is the beginning of a lot of potential ugliness. A thread.
Lawrence v. Texas: Decided in 2003, the court used the Right to Privacy to determine that it's unconstitutional to punish people for committing sodomy. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminalizing homosexuality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas …
Griswold v. Connecticut: Decided in 1965, this case protects the ability of married couples to buy contraceptives without government restriction. This isn't just about abortion. Next up, contraceptives.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut …
Loving v. Virginia: This 1968 case, which threw out laws banning interracial marriages, was decided based on the right to privacy. If a state wanted to prohibit who people could marry -- there is no protection from that without a right to privacy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia …
Stanley v Georgia: This 1969 case found that there was a right to privacy around possession pornography. If a state wants to outlaw pornography or certain forms of adult pornography, it could do that without the right to privacy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia …
Obergefell v. Hodges: The 2015 opinion that legalized same sex marriage used the right to privacy and the equal protection clause to do so. This could open the door for a state to try to test same sex marriage laws.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges …
Meyer v. Nebraska: This 1923 ruling allows families to decide for themselves if they want their children to learn a language other than English. This could open the door for racist states to try to outlaw learning their family's languages.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska …
Skinner v Oklahoma: This 1942 ruling found that it's unconstitutional to forcibly sterilize people. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminals, disabled people or BIPOC folks to be forcibly sterilized.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma …
Okay. That's a quick overview of the judicial chaos that could occur in the aftermath of striking down Roe v Wade. All of these decisions might no longer be settled law and states could try to test them by creating laws designed to test the courts.
Judge Alito is a constitutional 'originalist' and that means that he believes the constitution should be interpreted as it was meant when it was created. That means that he likely doesn't believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution.
Judge Thomas, Judge Barrett and Judge Gorsuch are also originalists. They don't see themselves responsible for the chaos that ensues after Supreme Court decisions. They don't believe past precedent matters. Only the original meaning.
This is a good background on originalism. What's especially scary is how the 14th amendment (now used to support the right to privacy) was once used to strike down minimum wage laws, make unionization illegal, and take away limits on working hours.https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court …
ADDING: Here is another article that looks at the complexities of originalism. It lists Kavanaugh as an originalist. Alito's originalism is more complicated. He has called himself a 'practical originalist' and cares more about precedent than the others.https://apnews.com/article/samuel-alito-legislation-stephen-breyer-barack-obama-constitutions-bd1e3ae6613ab5a8dda12bf78dffc789 …
This thread is not meant to say that overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t bad enough. I was tweeting about the horrors of that b4 writing this thread. I think these ramifications are not as well known and wanted to make sure the broader impact was understood.https://action.aclu.org/give/now?ms_aff=NAT&initms_aff=NAT&ms=web_horiz_nav_hp&initms=web_horiz_nav_hp&ms_chan=web&initms_chan=web&redirect=node/65102 …
People reading the full draft are tweeting about the horrors within it. My thread wasn't hyperbolic. Alito specifically refers to Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage. Fuck.https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732?s=20&t=r8XEnPO09hPGhFHBIU9gAg …
Think this isn’t what they’re doing? Everyone closely following things disagrees. Read this whole thread.https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1521481082742398977 …
Think Alito doesn't want to see Obergefell repealed, too? Think again.https://twitter.com/hscottpalmer/status/1521470181247275008?s=20&t=gcRcdFAH5slLzzjahnL7KA …
I'm really over right wing folks trying to spin this and telling me that this decision either doesn't jeopardize these cases or isn't about the right to privacy. This is what the actual opinion states.https://twitter.com/hahn116/status/1521562985948336128?s=20&t=gcRcdFAH5slLzzjahnL7KA …
The International Association of Privacy Professionals wrote a piece that looks at the opinions' right to privacy concerns:"The leaked decision...is a privacy decision. Rolling back over 50 years of jurisprudence on privacy rights is, in a word, shocking." https://iapp.org/news/a/leaked-roe-v-wade-opinion-sparks-right-to-privacy-concerns/ …
Interested in the criminal consequences of overturning Roe for people who have abortions and the health care providers who perform them? I break it down state by state:https://twitter.com/a_h_reaume/status/1522999156159045632?s=20&t=WPUMaOPm1zPh8BQLx2dYCQ …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
