{"id":28753,"date":"2022-09-12T01:53:55","date_gmt":"2022-09-12T01:53:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/egrowonline.com\/?p=28753"},"modified":"2022-09-12T01:53:55","modified_gmt":"2022-09-12T01:53:55","slug":"a-ripple-effect-the-skip-from-abortion-to-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/egrowonline.com\/?p=28753","title":{"rendered":"A Ripple Effect: The Skip From Abortion to Marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/p>\n
\n
An Opinion on Why the Overturn of Roe v. Wade<\/em> Could Impact More Than Women\u2019s Rights<\/h2>\n
By Nikki Ramos | Observer Contributor<\/em><\/p>\n<\/figure>\n
Forty-nine years after the milestone decision, the U.S Supreme Court made the controversial choice to overturn Roe v. Wade<\/em>. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, Justice Clarence Thomas asserted, \u201cSubstantiative due process\u2026has harmed our country in many ways and accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.\u201d This bold statement implies that all other cases supported by the substantiative due process clause should be re-examined by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In a Jun. 24 article from NBC News,<\/em> reporter Adam Edelman pointed out that despite directly mentioning other cases, Thomas has yet to mention if Loving v. Virginia,<\/strong><\/em> 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 \u201cwe the people\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
Reporters Jazmine Ulloa and Stephanie Lai explained in a New York Times<\/em> article published on June 24, \u201cPolicy advocates and lawyers with some of the nation\u2019s leading L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy organizations\u2026called [Thomas\u2019s] words a warning shot against any fundamental rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, including protections for interracial marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Even in today\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 However, according to a Jul. 1 article from Forbes<\/em> by Journalist Alison Durkee, \u201cThe percentage of Americans that think that abortion and women\u2019s rights should be among the government\u2019s top priorities has almost tripled in the past six months.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 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\u2019s anti-miscegenation laws.<\/p>\n
After agreeing to leave the state of Virginia for twenty-five years to avoid a one-year jail sentence, the Loving\u2019s 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\u2019s and struck down Virginia\u2019s anti-miscegenation laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
In a 2018 Fordham Law Review<\/em> article Boston University Professor of Law Linda C. McClain said, \u201cIn Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em>, the case in which the Court held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples, the majority drew on Loving<\/em> repeatedly to support its reasoning.\u201d Therefore, the potential repeal of Loving v. Virginia<\/em> could signal an imminent downfall for the rights of same-sex couples as well.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Imagine 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.<\/p>\n
In the wake of Thomas\u2019 position on other fourteenth amendment cases, Jim Obergefell of Obergefell v. Hodges <\/em>professed his dismay at the direction our civil rights are headed. In a Jun. 24 New York Times<\/em> article, he said, \u201cJustice Thomas makes it clear, once again, that he does believe some of us are more equal than others\u2013 that some of us don\u2019t deserve to commit to the person we love.\u201d Obergefell\u2019s poignant statement reminds me that in the \u201cland of the free,\u201d we are not always free.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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\u2019ll let you decide.<\/p>\n
\n
Please follow and like us:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.mountobserver.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/abortion.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n