Where To From Here? Abortion Opponents Consider Next Steps

The Wall Street Journal: Abortion Opponents Consider How Far To Press After End Of Roe V. Wade
Now, having achieved a Supreme Court victory that overruled Roe and ended the constitutional right to an abortion, antiabortion advocates are considering what to do next. Some powerful voices in the movement urge a measured approach guided by political realities post-Roe, seeking to ban the procedure after the first trimester in more moderate states and maintaining meaningful exceptions for rape and incest. Others view this as a once-in-a-generation moment and moral imperative to push for a complete end to abortion, especially in states where conservatives hold political power. The staunchest opponents want states to treat it as murder. (Kusisto, 6/26)

More on the right to contraception —

The Hill: Graham: Alito ‘Set The Right Tone’ In Roe Ruling By Arguing Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception Not In Jeopardy
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday said Justice Samuel Alito “set the right tone” by writing in an opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that Supreme Court decisions protecting contraception and same-sex marriage are not in jeopardy. Graham made the remarks during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” while noting that he respects Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that he wanted to take a look at contraception and same-sex marriage after overturning Roe and abortion protections. (Dress, 6/26)

Stat: Supreme Court Decision Suggests Right To Contraception Is Under Threat
Over the past half century, Roe v. Wade has been a bedrock of constitutional rights extending beyond abortion. The Supreme Court decision overturning this ruling, issued Friday, makes clear that those other rights founded on the same principle of privacy, including gay sex, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and the freedom to use contraception, are now also called into question. Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Samuel Alito states that “​​nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” ​​But, in a solo concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly calls on the Court to overturn other such constitutional rights. (Goldhill, 6/24)

The Wall Street Journal: Clarence Thomas’s Abortion Opinion Revisits Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception 
When the Supreme Court removed the constitutional right to an abortion, most of the justices in the majority focused on what they described as the “egregiously wrong” ruling that established that right in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Justice Clarence Thomas took a broader view. In his opinion concurring with the majority, he wrote that if the legal underpinnings of Roe v. Wade were wrong, then so were the underpinnings of other rights not enumerated in the Constitution that the court recognized in recent decades. They include the right of married couples to use contraception, the right to same-sex romantic relationships and, in 2015, the right to same-sex marriage. (Wolfe, 6/25)

The Washington Post: Clarence Thomas Says Right To Contraception In Griswold V. Connecticut Was 'Erroneous' 
In an opinion concurring with his conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court to overturn the fundamental right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on Friday that striking down Roe v. Wade should also open up the high court to review other precedents that may be deemed “demonstrably erroneous.” Among those, Thomas wrote, was the right for married couples to buy and use contraception without government restriction, from the landmark 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. (Kornfield, Bella and Wang, 6/26)

On gay rights —

The New York Times: Pride March In New York Infused With New Sense Of Urgency 
The festivities began on Sunday with a familiar feel: Revelers adorned in a palette of bright colors, waving rainbow flags and handmade signs, tossed confetti into the air as the roar of screams and bikers revving their motorcycle engines signaled the start of the annual New York City Pride March in Manhattan. But there was no mistaking that this year’s event, for all its joyous celebrations, had taken on sudden urgency and heightened significance just two days after the United States Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion and signaled that the court could reconsider other liberties, including the 2015 decision that allowed same-sex marriage. (Haag, Marcius and McCarthy, 6/26)

On calls to expand or impeach Supreme Court justices —

Insider: White House: Biden Does Not Want To Expand Supreme Court
As calls for remedies to restrictions on abortion access grow, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Saturday that President Joe Biden "does not agree with" expanding the Supreme Court. "I was asked this question yesterday, and I've been asked it before... about expanding the Court. That is something that the President does not agree with. That is not something that he wants to do," Jean-Pierre said during a press briefing on Air Force One. (Getahun, 6/25)

The Hill: Ocasio-Cortez Says Conservative Justices Lied Under Oath, Should Be Impeached 
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) on Sunday said conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who “misled” Americans during their confirmation hearings about whether or not they supported overturning Roe v. Wade should be impeached and face “consequences” for lying under oath. (Dress, 6/26)

More on the history behind the Roe v. Wade ruling —

Politico: The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’ 
There is ample reason to disagree with originalism as a legal philosophy. Should a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, trains, electric lights and indoor plumbing? In some ways, though, that’s a pointless debate at the moment. With originalists holding six of the Supreme Court’s nine seats, we’re all living in an originalist world. The functional problem with originalism is that it requires a very, very firm grasp of history — a grasp that none of the nine justices, and certainly few of their 20-something law clerks, freshly minted from J.D. programs, possess. (Zeitz, 6/26)

The Washington Post: How Roe V. Wade Ruling Changed As Justices' Thinking Evolved 
As the country grapples with a radically changed abortion rights landscape now that Roe v. Wade has been struck down, it’s worth considering that Roe very nearly didn’t happen in the first place — at least not the way it’s governed the country for the past half-century. A review of internal Supreme Court documents reveals that the justices’ thinking on Roe evolved dramatically over the course of eight months of deliberations. If not for several key changes of heart — and strategy — we wouldn’t have ended up with an ironclad right to abortion before a pregnancy is considered viable. (Robenalt, 6/26)