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.”

  • @PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    375 months ago

    Someone shortlist that Wecht dude for when Alito drops dead because holy shit did that man throw down.

    • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      -15 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
        95 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.

  • @MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    75 months ago

    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.”

    Recently? Pretty sure that was still the case as of lunchtime today, did the supreme court fall into the ocean and no one told me?

  • Kushan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45 months ago

    But what does this actually mean for women? I’m not clear on what the impact of this statement is, does it change anything?

    • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

      Conflicting judgements usually mean appeals to the Supreme Court which in a just world this would protect abortions under anti discrimination rather than privacy law like it was before. But our supreme Court is fucked in the head twice from Sunday so it could also fall the other way and women somehow end up property again.