I think the people catastrophizing about contraception or interracial marriage being next after Roe sincerely believe it. But I'm sorry, I cannot take this seriously.
Even if Griswold v. Connecticut were overturned, making it once again legal to ban contraception, that throws it back to the states, and where is the political constituency for state legislatures passing a ban?
The Catholic Church is the only sizable faith community in this country that proscribes contraception, but regardless of Church teaching, a substantial majority of Catholic couples use birth control, and are not going to vote to take it away from themselves.
The net effect of overturning Griswold is that contraception will continue to be legal in all 50 states. In a few states, it might become harder to get certain IUDs and the morning after pill, but even that is dubious.
Similarly, it is not 1950. In Georgia, 13-14% of Atlanta and Augusta couples are now interracial! Even in the Deep South, outlawing interracial marriage would be a lift.
But also, is Clarence Thomas going to vote to let states outlaw his marriage?
But also, is Clarence Thomas going to vote to let states outlaw his marriage?
Actually, Clarence Thomas, I dunno, maybe. He's a rabid ideologue, and I man that as a compliment. But Brett Kavanaugh and ACB are not your votes for re-legalizing bans on interracial marriage.
(But that's what the logic of the Alito draft implies, you say? Let me introduce you to "motivated reasoning"--something anyone who has read Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey will already be familiar with. If SC wants to find a way to distinguish it, they will. And they will.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
