“Miranda Rights” are a staple of any current or past US police drama. But not future ones. They begin with a police officer telling a handcuffed suspect, “You have the right to remain silent,” and continue to note that what the suspect says can be used against them later on in the justice system.
In a precedent-reversing ruling that was completely overshadowed by two other opinions, the US Supreme Court ruled that while the Miranda rights still hold true, law enforcement officers do not need to tell suspects this.
In a country where 59% of all black men — regardless of previous history — have felt they were stopped by police unfairly, the evisceration of Miranda rights holds stark racial justice implications.
But you may not have heard about this ruling because of another opinion from the court that struck down a New York State law restricting concealed firearms.
And this ruling was overshadowed by a ruling that came out today, eliminating federal protections for abortion that have stood since 1973. Numerous states now have abortion bans currently in effect and many others seek to join them now that the ruling from Roe v Wade is no longer in place.
We knew they were going to dismantle Roe. But hiding the other decisions behind the outrage over abortion rights is incendiary and then some.
I’d like to think that the US cannot be an outlier as the rest of the world — even those with Catholic majorities — legalize abortion rights. Argentina, Colombia and Mexico all ended their bans in the past two years. That’s not inconsequential. But change here in the US will only come through a painful and inequitable road.
The consequences for women in states where abortion is or will soon become illegal are severe. As Ellen J. MacKenzie, the dean of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Sarah L. Szanton, the dean of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing wrote back in April:
“Research shows that women denied abortions are more likely to endure physical violence from the man involved in the pregnancy. They also have higher levels of debt and experience more bankruptcies, evictions and other financial hardships… In one study, children born after denial of abortion experienced five times higher odds of poor maternal bonding compared to children born to women who previously received an abortion and went on to have another pregnancy. Moreover, their siblings have less robust development and are more likely to live below the federal poverty level.”
Pouring gasoline on the fire today, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the court should reconsider a 1965 decision that affirmed the rights of married couples to use contraception, a 2003 decision that legalized sex for non-heterosexual couples, and a 2015 decision that established marriage as a right for non-heterosexual couples. These decisions, like the abortion rights decisions that were just overturned, were all based on a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The one decision he left out was Loving v Virginia, which relied on the 14th Amendment to legalize interracial marriages in 1967. But why wouldn’t the conservatives come after that as well?
There are a number of gifs making the rounds noting how the three newest Supreme Court justices all testified in front of Congress that they respect the precedents of past court decisions, and Roe v. Wade in particular. While they all tried to evade the direct questions, they couldn’t help but state their respect for judicial precedent.
Neil Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing that “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade “is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.”
Amy Coney Barrett said in her confirmation hearing that “I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, … it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge. So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”
Yet all three overturned precedents this week. Can they be charged with lying to Congress? More importantly, will Congress — ostensibly controlled by pro-choice lawmakers who should be outraged — at least insist on trying to charge these justices?
All of this is transpiring less than five months away from Congressional elections. It is a direct challenge for people who care about reproductive rights, racial justice and gun control to not just vote, but to help others overcome the many barriers that have been erected across the country to suppress the vote.
Being silent in the face of this challenge is no longer optional, or protected. It is time to be vocal, to be active, to do more than complain on social media and wait for someone else to step forward and fix things.
Vote, and make sure everyone else does too — because they are coming for that right as well.
