2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade - Images (66 results)
LUHMAHOW-OW-OW OH GOD MY SIDESRFLFJGL
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Communist GOP
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
It's Roever
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 and Juul Ban
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022 (meme)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Michelle Obama Roe v. Wade Overturned 2022
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests Overturning Gay Marriage
![Cite as: 597 U. S. (2022) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), are not at issue. The Court's abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31-32, 66, 71-72, and no party has asked us to decide "whether our entire Fourteenth Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised," McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that "[n]othing in [the Court's] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion." Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra- bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr- iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen- erated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court's substantive due process cases are "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt. *Griswold v. Connecticut purported not to rely on the Due Process Clause, but rather reasoned "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights" including rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments-"have penumbras, formed by emanations," that create "zones of privacy." 381 U. S., at 484. Since Griswold, the Court, perhaps recognizing the facial absurdity of Griswold's penumbral argument, has characterized the decision as one rooted in substantive due process. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 663 (2015); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997).](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/002/392/455/482)
![Cite as: 597 U. S. (2022) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), are not at issue. The Court's abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31-32, 66, 71-72, and no party has asked us to decide "whether our entire Fourteenth Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised," McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that "[n]othing in [the Court's] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion." Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra- bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr- iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen- erated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court's substantive due process cases are "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt. *Griswold v. Connecticut purported not to rely on the Due Process Clause, but rather reasoned "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights" including rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments-"have penumbras, formed by emanations," that create "zones of privacy." 381 U. S., at 484. Since Griswold, the Court, perhaps recognizing the facial absurdity of Griswold's penumbral argument, has characterized the decision as one rooted in substantive due process. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 663 (2015); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997).](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/392/455/482)
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
