I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.
The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause.
Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people".
Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.
The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.
http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...
Lest they be accused of inconsistency, this Supreme Court likely intends to remove any existing protections for those rights as well.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, in its entirety.
In other words: there is an entire Amendment specifically dedicated to refuting this argument. People have rights, even if they're not specifically written in the Constitution.
The 9th amendment says some rights aren't mentioned. But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states.
Abortion was not, in fact, banned when that amendment was written. The first full ban was in New York in 1829. [1]
Besides, the legal issue is not whether abortion is one of those rights per se, but rather whether privacy is an implicit right (almost certainly), and whether family planning (abortion, yes, but also contraception & choice of sex partner) is a sufficiently private decision that the government is restrained from regulating it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#....
The right to potentially life saving treatment sounds an awful lot like those enumerated in the first amendment, and the right to not have the government force you to go through an potentially deadly and avoidable situation sounds in the spirit of the eighth amendment.
Wealthy republicans can just fly their teenage daughters to a blue state, while poor people will inevitably end up getting back-alley abortions.
The news here isn’t a Supreme Court overriding voters, but devolving the decision of abortion rights to voters in the states and their elected representatives.
He then goes on to say outright that Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell should be reconsidered. I take that to mean the majority reactionary court, who also do not believe in substantive due process, will overturn those. And it also implies a call to action for reactionaries to start building cases.