News
Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Life is WINNING. Will you donate today to support LifeSite’s coverage of this momentous decision in the pro-life movement? We will need your help to continue our pro-life news now more than ever  

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion today in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that reversed Roe v. Wade. In it, Justice Thomas agreed that Roe should be reversed and argued that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) should next revisit other “substantive due process” cases.

He specifically mentioned Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws against sodomy, Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down laws against married couples using contraception, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared a right to same-sex “marriage.”

The late Justice Antonin Scalia correctly predicted in 2003 that Lawrence would lead to the required recognition of homosexual “marriage.”

“The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,'” Justice Thomas wrote.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in historic ruling

While he wrote that he agreed that today’s ruling does not affect those cases now, he wants the court to reconsider them and all other related cases that relied on a “substantive due process” claim.

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote.

“Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion,” he wrote further.

“But, in future cases, we should ‘follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away,'” Thomas continued, quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion from a 1994 case.

“Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways,” Thomas concluded. “Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”

Justice Thomas has previously criticized Obergefell.

“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Thomas wrote in 2020, commenting on the denial by SCOTUS to hear a challenge from Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refused to authorize same-sex “marriages.”

“Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty,'” he predicted.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

33 Comments

    Loading...