abortion: 14th amendment logic

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...897739779.html

Dr. Lauren MacIvor Thompson Profile picture
Dr. Lauren MacIvor Thompson
Twitter logo
May 3 • 28 tweets • 2 min read

🧵Justice Alito argues “…the Court has long been reluctant to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution…we must ask what the 14th amendment means…the clear answer is that the 14th amendment does not provide the right to an abortion.”1/25

By this logic, here’s what else the 14th/the Constitution does not protect. A thread: (2/25)

Marrying someone of a different race (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) (3/25)

Birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965; Eisenstadt v. Baird,1973, others) (4/25)

Women with young children who want to work (Phillips v. Martin Marietta, 1971) (5/25)

Women's ability to preside over legal documents involving their kids (Reed v. Reed, 1971) (6/25)

Housing and benefits for female members of the armed services (Frontiero v. Richardson, 1973) (7/25)

Advertising jobs that specify only men can apply (Pittsburgh Press v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 1973). (8/25)

Women who get pregnant on the job and are fired (Cleveland BOE v. LaFleur, 1974) (9/25)

Widows (Kahn v. Shevin, 1974; Wengler v. Druggists Mutual, 1980) (10/25)

Women who make less than men for the same work (Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 1974) (11/25)

Women’s right to serve on juries (Taylor v. Louisiana, 1975; J.E.B. v. Alabama, 1994) (12/25)

Social security benefits for women (Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 1975; Califano v. Goldfarb, 1977) (13/25)

Unemployment benefits for pregnant women (Turner v. Department of Employment Security, 1975) (14/25)

Pregnant women’s exclusion from employer health and disability plans (General Electric v. Gilbert, 1976) (15/25)

Women’s right to get jobs traditionally held by men (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1977) (16/25)

Pregnant women’s rights to advance in the workplace (Nashville Gas v. Satty, 1977) (17/25)

Women of color’s access to higher education (Regents of the Univ of Cav. Bakke, 1978; Fisher v. Univ of TX, 2016) (18/25)

Benefits for unemployed moms (Califano v. Westcott, 1979) (19/25)
A wife’s property within a marriage (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 1980) (20/25)

Sexual harassment in the workplace (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 1986) (21/25)

Pregnant women who choose to work dangerous jobs (UAW v. Johnson Controls, 1991) (22/25)

Sexual harassment and abuse in secondary schools (Franklin v. Gwinnet County Public Schools, 1992; Gebser v. Lago Vista ISD, 1998; Davis v. Monroe County BOE, 1999) (23/25)

Women who want to attend a state-funded college of their choosing (US v. Virginia, 1996) (24/25)

Women’s testimony in domestic violence (Davis v. Washington, 2006)
Anyone not a white, straight man (25/25 FIN).

This is not a complete list btw.

Eisenstadt is 1972. Apologies for the typo.

Well now it's suddenly letting me add more tweets so this list also includes the right to same sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

The silence in the Constitution about women, POC, LGBTQ is a feature, not a bug.

The clear answer seems to be the SCOTUS is kicking the can back to the states.

From which we can expect state judgements in the future to be appealed up to the Supreme Court.

So a Twitter thread is your support info?

That’s lazier than lazy, BP.

At least you gave yourself five big stars.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The clear answer seems to be the SCOTUS is kicking the can back to the states.

From which we can expect state judgements in the future to be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Which is probably where it should have stayed in the first place.

hung on that 14th amendment hat rack