Justice Clarence Thomas Raises Important Questions During Privacy Case

(PatrioticPost.com)- There’s a lot at stake in the Supreme Court right now, as the case of Mississippi’s abortion law is being debated.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas raised some important questions about the matters at hand in the case. Thomas questioned the lawyers for the state of Mississippi about the clear distinction between a right to privacy and a right to abortion.

The landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade cited a right to privacy grounded in the Constitution in making abortion legal in the country.

Thomas asked the lawyer:

“You focus on the right to abortion, but our jurisprudence seems to focus on in Casey, autonomy, in Roe privacy. Does it make a difference that we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion?”

Scott Stewart, the solicitor general of Mississippi, replied:

“Yes, the Constitution does protect certain aspects of privacy, of autonomy and the like. But this court said in Glucksberg, going directly from the general concepts of autonomy, of privacy, of bodily integrity, to a right, is not how we traditionally — this court traditionally does due process analysis.”

The case before the Supreme Court is called Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. The law basically bans abortions after 15 weeks into pregnancy, and doesn’t provide exceptions for rape or incest.

Many people believe that the Supreme Court could ultimately completely overturn the Roe decision or peel it back, allowing for at least some states to ban abortion altogether — or limit it considerably.

During oral arguments this week, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a heated discussion with Stewart about when exactly a fetus could feel pain. Stewart was claiming that science has advanced since the 1970s when Roe was decided — and even the 1990s when Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided — that only bolsters his state’s case.

Sotomayor pushed back, grilling Stewart on the exact time when a fetus could feel pain. She said:

“Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly plain shredded, responding to stimuli.

“So, I don’t think that a response to buy a fetus necessary proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness. So, I go back to my question of, what has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line, that a fetus cannot survive?”

Stewart responded:

“What I’d say is this Justice Sotomayor, is that the fundamental problem with viability — it’s not really something that rests on science so much. It’s that viability is not tethered to anything in the Constitution, in history or tradition. It’s a quintessentially legislative line.”

This extremely important case in front of the Supreme Court right now has a lot of lawmakers divided, obviously, and a lot of people around the country are on edge waiting to see what will happen.

The court is expected to issue its ruling sometime next year.