Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has once again gone on record stating that the Roe v. Wade ruling from 1973 that allowed virtually unlimited abortions should be overturned.
As LifeNews reported, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and conservatives on the Supreme Court appear to have set up the legal rationale for someday overturning the roe v. Wade case from 1973 that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy.
Abortion activists and leading Democrats for years have attempted to turn Roe into some sort of ultra-precedent that for some reason can’t be overturned because it has been on the books for decades– even though the nation’s highest court has overturned precedents previously when needed, such as cases related to slavery and civil rights.
In a decision earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled on a case unrelated to abortion — but one that could have a massive impact on Roe. And its ruling, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, set for examples of cases that might be overturned and explained why overturning precedent is definitely allowable.
In his own concurring opinion, Justice Thomas listed three “incorrect decisions” he said used a faulty interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those included Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, and Dred Scott v. Sandford.
This isn’t the first time Justice Thomas has indicated Roe needs to go.
Last year Thomas hinted at his willingness to overturn the infamous abortion ruling Roe v. Wade on Monday in an opinion about a gun rights case. he questioned the high court’s tendencies to lean on precedent for its decisions.
“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” Thomas wrote in his decision.
He said the court should not “elevate” court precedent over the U.S. Constitution, and some precedents are “demonstrably erroneous.” At one point in his decision, he mentioned the abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The 1992 case, which upheld Roe, says that states cannot place an undue burden on women’s access to abortion. Thomas dissented in the case.
Thomas said the court should “restore” its jurisprudence relating to precedents to ensure it exercises “mere judgment” and focuses on the “correct, original meaning” of laws it interprets.
“In our constitutional structure, our rule of upholding the law’s original meaning is reason enough to correct course,” Thomas wrote.
Speculation is growing about whether the high court will hear an abortion case in the future and overturn Roe v. Wade. The justices recently refused to hear an Indiana case involving a law that protects unborn babies from discriminatory abortions based on their race, sex or a disability. Though the ruling was disappointing, the Supreme Court did uphold a second part of the law that requires abortion facilities to cremate or bury aborted babies.
Thomas wrote an opinion urging the court to consider laws that protect unborn babies from eugenics.
“… this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics,” he wrote. “Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope.”
Thomas said he believes the court needs to “percolate” on the abortion issue more before hearing a major abortion case.