Would the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on Roe v Wade nullify other civil liberties like gay marriage? The pro-abortion left has used this as a rallying point to gain support from other groups. The only problem is, that Justice Alito specifically mentioned Supreme Court cases that decide these rights in his opinion, and affirmed them.
This argument has been used as nothing more than a fear-mongering tactic to coerce others who otherwise wouldn’t, into acting against the court.
On page 62, Alito specifically addresses this argument. He addresses Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage), Lawrence V Texas (gay sex), and Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraceptive) and says that his opinion pertains only to abortion and must not be mischaracterized to cast doubt on other rights granted under the 14th amendment.
He draws a distinction between “material intimacy” and the “right to an abortion”. Providing a right to gay intercourse, marriage or use of contraceptives does not infringe on the rights of others. The “right to an abortion” does.
Killing the baby actually robs it of all of these other rights. In fact, the fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause could easily be construed to protect the rights of the fetus.
The equal protection clause prevents states from drawing distinctions between individuals that are irrelevant to legitimate government objectives and says that they must govern impartially according to Cornell.
Alito also addresses these cases and more on page 32. This is the first place that he affirmed them and made clear that the ruling on Roe would not have any bearing on other precedents.