Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Roe v. Wade ‘should be overruled’ By Paul Smeaton for Life Site News
‘The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion,’ wrote Justice Thomas. ‘Moreover, the fact that no five Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy.’
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned U.S. abortion law and called for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision imposing abortion on demand across the country, and “its progeny” to be overruled as irreconcilable with the Constitution.
Thomas made the comments during his dissenting opinion given during yesterday’s June Medical Services v. Russo ruling striking down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications.
Support Our Site
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
“[W]e exceed our constitutional authority whenever we ‘appl[y] demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text,’” Thomas concluded.
“Because we can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution, those decisions should be overruled,” he stated.
Thomas said that the challenge to the Louisiana law should have been rejected for the simple fact that the abortionists in question had no legal standing to bring it in the first place. “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction,” he wrote.
Thomas said that the case had been brought by “abortionists and abortion clinics” whose sole claim was that Louisiana’s law “violated the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child.”
“But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction,” he stated.
