court to look at other rulings like same-sex marriages and contraceptions. how do you see this playing out? is there a chance this could actually happen? it s a lesson from dobbs, the ruling that the supreme court handed down friday, it is that we should expect that long-standing law is now vulnerable. roe v. wade had been on the books for 50 years. longer than these other rights that we re talking about in some cases. so here s how it works. the majority opinion says we are only talking about abortion. this case has now value beyond that one issue. and then justice thomas, who concurs, writes an important that explicitly says not so fast, majority, there are other rights from this same substantive due process branch of the rights tree, and none of those rights are rights that the constitution should protect. so for right now, it is only justice thomas writing for
arkansas. it might be in the future, but for now, the law triggered with only one exception. you can debate whether or not there ought to be different exceptions, every state makes a different determination on that in our constitution and this will continue to be discussed, but at this particular point, the only exception in arkansas is to save the life of the mother. a few other questions people in arkansas have about sort of now what. emergency contraception, the so-called plan b pill, is it illegal for someone in arkansas to take or not now? first of all, the fact that justice thomas said that some of these other cases ought to be looked at, there was no one that joined in that opinion. this is not about contraceptions, this is not about same-sex marriage.
we re not going to go after contraceptions because this just deals with abortion. the fact is that their legal reasoning effectively undermines griswold and the right to contraception, the right to interracial marriage and all the other things that pete williams said. so any court that is going to follow the logic of this case would apply the law of this case to every one of those other issues. yeah, and you have mentioned earlier, the hypocrisy around this decision, and i m struck by how close in time the gun decision was to this decision. keep in mind here, the constitution talks about a well regulated militia. they said in really bombastic terms that new york had no right to regulate guns that this has
electoral standpoint will be that. now, what alarms democrats, i think, and alarms me, more so than the the decision was alarming, but as you give this all back to the states is what justice thomas said in his concurring opinion about privacy and the expectation of it, and the fact that the constitution does not specifically enumerate certain things, contraceptions, even your digital identity. you launch an effort to a, look, maybe an amendment to the constitution that enumerates privacy, and we enumerate privacy for families and women. let that debate happen. i have thoughts on that. i m sure we all do. democrats need to do what they did different years when they wanted to overturn roe. lay out out a plan for the long term. in the short term, the violence doesn t work. lay out the concern for not just for women, but for men.
reproductive health decisions. what do you say supporter who say this is not a nationwide ban on abortion. this is just leaving it up to states to decide from their elected representatives to decide what will happen on abortion. what do you say to that? i would say the thomas said this decision and removing privacy protections and over turning 49 years of precedent that next should be access to contraceptions, to gay mairriag and on and on. there s a lot of really anger. i would say anger and fear and determination. we know people are having problems to access to abortions in these states.