Most Read


Sotomayor Shuts Down Lawyer Who Claims Overturning Abortion Rights Won't Put LGBTQ Rights In Danger

Sotomayor Shuts Down Lawyer Who Claims Overturning Abortion Rights Won't Put LGBTQ Rights In Danger
Paul Marotta/Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which challenges Mississippi's recently passed ban on abortions after only 15 weeks of gestation. The law violates Roe v. Wade, a historic SCOTUS decision that protected the right to abort a fetus until it is viable outside the womb.

By bringing this case before the Supreme Court, Mississippi is essentially asking the Court to overturn its own decision on abortion rights.

During arguments, Justice Sotomayor cited both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—which reaffirmed Roe—noting overturning those decisions would impinge on Americans' right to privacy.

While the United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy, several Supreme Court decisions have interpreted it to do so implicitly. Several cases since Roe have also determined the government has to respect citizens' rights to make their own choices, especially when it involves personal, moral decisions that do not affect others—like abortion.

Justice Sotomayor noted overturning the Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade would open an opportunity to challenge other rights gained because of SCOTUS decisions, such as rights for LGBTQ+ individuals.

She noted the Court has:

"recognized them in terms of the religion parents will teach their children."
"We’ve recognized it in their ability to educate at home if they choose…."
"We have recognized that sense of privacy in people’s choices about whether to use contraception or not."
"We’ve recognized it in their right to choose who they’re going to marry."

After Sotomayor spoke, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Scott Stewart, Mississippi's Solicitor General who was defending his state's anti-abortion law, whether the court deciding in favor of the law would affect the cases noted by Justice Sotomayor.

Stewart claimed they would not, because those cases had:

"clear rules that have engendered strong reliance interests and that have not produced negative consequences or all the many other negative stare decisis considerations we pointed out."

Stewart essentially claimed decisions decriminalizing gay sex and guaranteeing access to contraceptives haven't had a negative impact like Roe's guaranteed access to abortion has.

This answer prompted Justice Sotomayor to tersely challenge Stewart's words, telling him:

"I just think you’re dissimulating when you say that any ruling here wouldn’t have an effect on those."

There are plenty of people who rely on access to abortion, and there are also plenty of people who would claim gay sex, contraceptives and abortion are all harmful in an attempt to overturn their legality.

Twitter users seemed to largely agree as well.

Lambda Legal's Sharon McGowen seems to agree with Justice Sotomayor as well, telling Bloomberg hard-won victories like Lawrence v. Texas—which legalized gay sex in all states—and Obergefell v. Hodges—which legalized marriage equality:

"were built on the foundation of Roe and Casey and the Court’s other reproductive rights cases."