The Supreme Court’s eradication of the constitutional right to abortion in 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had an immediate and devastating impact on gender equality in the United States. With a single ruling, five justices wiped out millions of women’s access to basic health care and handed control over their medical decisions to politicians and judges. It wasn’t just the court’s judgment, though, that relegated women to a lesser place in the constitutional order; it was also the court’s reasoning, which used the centuries long oppression of women to justify an ongoing oppression of women by way of a deprivation of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion rested largely on the views of dead white men who condoned the rape, beating, and murder of women to maintain female subjugation in every realm of life. And he dismissed his ruling’s ruinous impact on gender equality in a single conclusory paragraph asserting that abortion restrictions could not possibly discriminate against women.

This week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court responded to that conclusion: no. On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” Justice David Wecht went even further: In an extraordinary concurrence, the justice recounted the historical use of abortion bans to repress women, condemned Alito’s error-ridden analysis, and repudiated the “antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”

  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why wait? The number of supreme court judges isn’t limited. You can just appoint more. Like a 100 lol.

    But first the democrats should do their duty and pass federal laws allowing access to safe abortions. What is stopping them? I don’t get how the democrats aren’t eating shit about this. Maybe the democrats don’t want to mess with the supreme court because they are all corporatists.

    • jennwiththesea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      But first the democrats should do their duty and pass federal laws allowing access to safe abortions.

      How, honey? Seriously, lay out for me how you think this happens with the current makeup of Congress.