How Roe v. Wade’s reversal could effect the LGBT community

The hill ^ | 05/08/2022 | Lauren Vella

[ChicagoConservative27]

The possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade has set off alarm bells in the LGBT community.

Advocates and legal experts are warning that the 1973 landmark decision, which deemed that a woman’s right to abortion is constitutional, could have severe consequences for LGBT Americans’ mental and physical health, socioeconomic status and right to marriage.

[Arcadian Empire]

Marriages should be private contracts between the man and the woman getting married.

[Wuli]

No. While both Roe and Obergfell roughly claim backing by the 14th amendment and its due process clause, Roe and Roe alone had to reach for the invented “right to privacy” to justify the application of 14th amendment protections. Alito makes that clear.

[whitney69]

“The possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade has set off alarm bells in the LGBT community.”

LGBT? Fascinating assumption here. But the liberals still haven’t figured out that two people of the same sex cannot conceive. So the privilege of abortion is being transferred to a right of choice when a life is in the balance.

I watched Adam Chit make a statement on CSPAN yesterday saying the a white politician shouldn’t be making a decision for life or death for a person in Missouri? Just by bringing it up he is creating a racial divide and not anything to do with the topic of abortion, doesn’t that make him a racist?

And his only other demeaning comment about the bill they passed was that there was nothing in the bill about incest or rape. So, if that is added to the bill, is the bill okay now and abortion cannot be on command as it is now?

wy69

[imabadboy99]

Maybe women will stop being so promiscuous and engaging in ‘hookup’ culture if Roe is overturned. Huge problem finding a decent woman for my generation b/c of the vast number of young women who sleep around then want to settle down after their party days are over.

[DoodleDawg]

No. While both Roe and Obergfell roughly claim backing by the 14th amendment and its due process clause, Roe and Roe alone had to reach for the invented “right to privacy” to justify the application of 14th amendment protections. Alito makes that clear.

If the Due Process clause does not provide a right to privacy then what in it provides a right to personal choice?

[bobbo666]

Could be some merit to the point.

After all, the “rights” found in crafting RvW are made up. They do not exist in the Const.
So, if some rights can be made up, others can, too.

Regardless, if your right does not exist, then try another argument. Or, would that require some version of rational thought, and you are incapable of that?

[Dilbert San Diego]

If there were challenges to homosexual marriage, and the worst from the LGBT activist point of view happened, then the marriage issue would go back to the states. Is that the end of the world in the homosexual world, just as abortion being decided by states is apparently a crime against humanity in the liberal world?

[Sooth2222]

In recent years, people have been having less (normosexual) sex and so there have been fewer abortions in recent years.

The people protesting are in big blue states and places where the odds of any new laws restricting abortion (New York, New Jersey, DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, California) are at absolute zero.

(Looking at the protesters, there is an absolute zero chance that most of them would ever need an abortion, either.)

I'm awaiting "How the overturn of Roe v. Wade is responsible for [insert every single failure of the Biden administration, from border insecurity to WW III]".)

[Maceman]

Fewer, not less.

[Mariner]

The left wants to conflate abortion with homo marriage.

Abortion had NO legal basis.

Homo marriage is based on Equal Protection, sound legal footing.

For those who say homos already have equal right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, they should look at that very narrow perspective through the lens of interracial marriage.

Should we outlaw interracial marriage too?

[Wuli]

“If the Due Process clause does not provide a right to privacy then what in it provides a right to personal choice?”

Read what the majority set in Obergfell, and remember its their words, not mine.

I am not defending Obergfell, only suggesting, as I think Alito tried to do, that Roe was unique and his ruling formulation does not carry to decisions like Obergfell.

[JimRed]

Queers can’t breed, so abortion should be the least of their concerns!

[newzjunkey]

It’s all about trying to get dem voters to the polls to save their majorities. Undoing Roe’s got nothing to do with concerns over segregation (yes, heard that too from the Left eventhough Thomas is in an interracial marriage) or gay marriage. I haven’t read the leaked opinion but abortion is fundamentally different. It’s taking a baby’s life. That’s not what happens when two men or women get married.

[DoodleDawg]

If there were challenges to homosexual marriage, and the worst from the LGBT activist point of view happened, then the marriage issue would go back to the states

Would it? Plans are already underway for a national solution to the abortion question to be enacted by Congress, why not gay marriage as well?

[DoodleDawg]

I am not defending Obergfell, only suggesting, as I think Alito tried to do, that Roe was unique and his ruling formulation does not carry to decisions like Obergfell.

Every court decision is unique, and Alito cannot know how a future court will interpret his logic in this decision.

[JimRed]

Should we outlaw interracial marriage too?

A lot of states did so. 16 of them in 1967.

[Allegra]

I find myself not really caring about how things “affect the LGBT community.”

[SauronOfMordor]

The major reason why gays want marriage, is to make their spouse eligible for corporate benefits like family health care.

A lot of companies preceding gay marriage extended benefits to “domestic partners”

I would like to allow companies to extend, or decline to extend, benefits packages however they please.

[Delta 21]

I was doing the common core math in my head and came up with the same answer.

[libertylover]

The Supreme Court ruling that pretends that homosexuality is normal should be overturned the same as Roe v. Wade and for the same reason: there nothing in the Constitution about it and should return to the states.

And why is there nothing in the Constitution about either one? Because in those days the idea that a woman would want to kill her baby was unthinkable and thus did not require an entry in the Constitution.

The idea that a man would want to ... was also unthinkable.