- SCOTUS’ decision to overturn Roe v. Wade upended nearly half a century of abortion rights precedent, while hinting at potential threats to LGBTQ+ rights.
- The majority opinion, which relies on the theory of originalism, could lead to challenges to landmark decisions protecting same-sex marriage, privacy, and even contraceptive rights.
In the landmark case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade not only upended nearly half a century of abortion rights precedent but also subtly cracked open Pandora’s Box, hinting at potential threats to LGBTQ+ rights. The decision, which has sent shockwaves through various advocacy communities, illustrates a precarious legal landscape that could extend far beyond the issue of reproductive rights. The implications of Dobbs could very well stretch into the realm of LGBTQ+ protections, making it a clarion call for vigilance and activism.
The majority opinion of Dobbs, grounded in the assertion that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to abortion, relies heavily on a principle of legal interpretation that could endanger other rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This interpretative approach, known as textualism or originalism, could logically extend to question the legitimacy of landmark decisions protecting same-sex marriage, privacy, and even contraceptive rights. In essence, if the Court is willing to retract rights based on their absence from the original text of the Constitution, what stops it from revisiting other substantive due process rights deemed “unenumerated”?
The concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas further illuminates this slippery slope. Thomas explicitly called for the reconsideration of cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (holding anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional), and Griswold v. Connecticut (finding a right to privacy). Although no other justice joined Thomas’ call, the mere suggestion sends a chilling message: the foundational cases underpinning LGBTQ+ rights could be on shaky ground.
Furthermore, the Dobbs decision accentuates the importance of state courts and legislatures in the fight for civil rights. With abortion rights now a patchwork of state laws, the LGBTQ+ community must recognize the increased role state-level advocacy will play in protecting or potentially endangering their rights. This reliance on state power creates an unpredictable and uneven landscape for LGBTQ+ rights, where protections may vary dramatically from one state to another, reminiscent of the pre-Obergefell era of same-sex marriage rights.
This moment serves as a wake-up call for the LGBTQ+ community and its allies to strengthen state-level protections, engage in more robust advocacy, and ensure that rights once thought secure are not eroded.
While the immediate impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is on abortion rights, its long-term implications for LGBTQ+ rights are undeniable. This decision stands as a stark reminder of the fragility of hard-won freedoms and the continuous need for vigilance in safeguarding them.
