An Opinion on Why the Overturn of Roe v. Wade Could Impact More Than Women’s Rights
By Nikki Ramos | Observer Contributor
Forty-nine years after the milestone decision, the U.S Supreme Court made the controversial choice to overturn Roe v. Wade. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Clarence Thomas asserted, “Substantiative due process…has harmed our country in many ways and accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” This bold statement implies that all other cases supported by the substantiative due process clause should be re-examined by the Supreme Court.
In a Jun. 24 article from NBC News, reporter Adam Edelman pointed out that despite directly mentioning other cases, Thomas has yet to mention if Loving v. Virginia, the case that legalized interracial marriage, would be re-examined. However, with his statement, I worry we could be brought back to a time when “we the people” did not mean equal. A time when the government decided who we were allowed to marry and what we could do with our own bodies. A time fought bravely by many that led us to modern civil rights; the rights that, with this statement, are now being threatened to be torn apart.
Reporters Jazmine Ulloa and Stephanie Lai explained in a New York Times article published on June 24, “Policy advocates and lawyers with some of the nation’s leading L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy organizations…called [Thomas’s] words a warning shot against any fundamental rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, including protections for interracial marriage.”
Even in today’s society, I have felt the disapproving stares from people who see my husband and I together. What I refuse to feel guilt for, however, is loving someone outside of my own race. The love I have for my husband transcends time and space, growing deeper by the minute based on the substance of who we are as people, with no regard for the color of our skin. Still, some contend that re-evaluation of such cases is necessary.
However, according to a Jul. 1 article from Forbes by Journalist Alison Durkee, “The percentage of Americans that think that abortion and women’s rights should be among the government’s top priorities has almost tripled in the past six months.” This begs the question as to if placing any more civil rights issues in the hands of the states is truly in the best interest of the people or is simply the views of a disillusioned minority.
To know exactly how far we have come as a society, we have to understand where civil rights first started. In 1958 Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married and arrested for violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws.
After agreeing to leave the state of Virginia for twenty-five years to avoid a one-year jail sentence, the Loving’s moved to Washington D.C and began their fight for justice. Then, on June 12, 1967, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Loving’s and struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invigorated the concept that the choices surrounding marriage lie with the individual and do not belong under the control of any state government. This case is a perpetual reminder that the fight for civil rights demands more autonomy and less control by government entities. The more freedom we have to make decisions about our own lives, the closer we approach us as a people being equal.
In a 2018 Fordham Law Review article Boston University Professor of Law Linda C. McClain said, “In Obergefell v. Hodges, the case in which the Court held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples, the majority drew on Loving repeatedly to support its reasoning.” Therefore, the potential repeal of Loving v. Virginia could signal an imminent downfall for the rights of same-sex couples as well.
Imagine fighting for decades for the law to recognize your right to love whom you choose, only to fear that this same right could be yanked away a mere seven years later. We have to take a moment to think to ourselves, what if this was my husband, my wife, my family? Our Constitution was created to protect fundamental liberties, not strip them away based on political and religious ideology.
In the wake of Thomas’ position on other fourteenth amendment cases, Jim Obergefell of Obergefell v. Hodges professed his dismay at the direction our civil rights are headed. In a Jun. 24 New York Times article, he said, “Justice Thomas makes it clear, once again, that he does believe some of us are more equal than others– that some of us don’t deserve to commit to the person we love.” Obergefell’s poignant statement reminds me that in the “land of the free,” we are not always free.
It is astonishing that fifty-five years ago, I would not have had the right to marry my husband and could have been potentially jailed for loving someone of a different race. Now forty-nine years later, some women have been stripped of the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health care. While you may have a completely different stance on civil rights, should one perspective forbid another?
This is the basis for all modern civil rights arguments. It is a fight for the ability to stand with pride and say this is who I am, and that right must never be taken away from me. In the aftermath of what many consider to be a backstep in the fight for civil rights, we must ask ourselves, will the injustice stop here? I’ll let you decide.
Comments are closed.