Published on: 06/28/2022 – 18:25 The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to bury the federal right to abortion could open the way to other setbacks in public freedoms such as access to contraception, gay marriage and even same-sex sexual relations. What if this was just the start? After the questioning, Friday, June 24, of the Roe vs. Wade judgment which, since 1973, granted American women the right to abort throughout the country, the judges of the Supreme Court could continue their conservative crusade by attacking access to contraception or even the rights of LGBT + people. It was the most conservative judge in the institution, Clarence Thomas, who rekindled the fears of the progressive camp in the United States. The magistrate, renowned for his radicalism, has indeed indicated that he wants to reconsider other historic decisions in a personal argument accompanying Friday’s arbitration. , which enshrines access to contraception for married couples; the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which outlawed laws against sexual relations between two people of the same sex, or the 2015 Oberfell v. Hodges decision, which authorized same-sex marriage, the number one target of the religious right American “Once again, Judge Thomas was clear: he thinks that some have fewer rights than others and do not deserve to commit to the person they love”, estimated with the New York Times Jim Obergefell, civil rights activist and lead plaintiff in the 2015 case that legalized gay marriage. century'” To challenge gay rights, judges could advance arguments similar to those used to bury Roe vs Wade. Starting with the fact that the Constitution does not specifically mention these rights. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and none of its articles implicitly protects this right,” conservative Judge Samuel Alito wrote in the ruling on Friday, as did the right to marry for two people of the same sex. Weakening respect for privacyLike Roe vs. Wade, the cases cited in his argument by Judge Thomas “maintain very strong links with the concepts of privacy, autonomy and freedom”, notes the law professor at the University of Colorado and LGBT+ rights expert Scott Skinner-Thompson. According to him, Friday’s decision paves the way for the weakening of the right to bodily autonomy and “could have harmful consequences for queer or transgender people, in particular for those who want to undergo surgery” within the framework of of a transition. Conversely, “the conservative majority attaches paramount importance to religious freedom”, explains Simon Grivet, professor of history and civilization of the United States at the University of Lille. “We saw it again on Monday with the Court’s decision, which granted the case to a football coach who wanted to pray on the pitch after the matches when he had been dismissed.”In 2020, the Supreme Court also refused to take on the case of a Kentucky court clerk who opposed issuing marriage records to gay couples in the name of religious freedom. Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito explained that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision posed “a threat to the religious freedom of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.” For now, the temple American law wants to be reassuring and writes in black and white that previous case law unrelated to abortion is not called into question. “The other conservative judges specify that Friday’s decision is radical because it relates specifically to abortion which concerns the life of the fetus and prenatal existence”, details Simon Grivet.>> To read also: “Testimonials: at the Texas, abortion is already almost impossible“The argument of Judge Thomas would therefore represent the opinion of only one judge out of the nine – including six conservatives – who make up the Supreme Court. “I don’t think the Court as it’s constituted can challenge gay marriage,” says Scott Skinner-Thompson, “particularly because conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh said the end of federal abortion rights did not threaten other rights.” “A new front” for the LGBT+ community certain jurists and associations, who have been concerned for several months about an anti-LGBT+ climate in certain conservative states. According to the ACLU, the largest American association for the defense of civil liberties, the Supreme Court’s decision only open “a new front in the merciless war waged against the LGBT + community”.Texan Governor Greg Abbott, for example, at the end of February ordered state agencies to investigate the transition paths of minors, in order to criminalize parents. accompanying their children in a gender transition. A month later, another Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed a law prohibiting the teaching of subjects related to sexual orientation or gender identity in Florida elementary schools. >> To read : Disney criticizes Florida law deemed anti-LGBT+, state sanctions group “We cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today’s ruling will be the last of its kind,” the minority judges wrote. According to a poll released this weekend by CBS, 57% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court could now tackle same-sex marriage and access to contraception. “This seems unlikely in the short term because this kind of decision takes a lot of time,” explains Simon Grivet. “But we can imagine that in five or ten years, a State will come back to the question of marriage for all and create a dispute with the hope of bringing it up to the Supreme Court.”
Welcome! Log into your account
Recover your password
A password will be e-mailed to you.