Back to 1868

From the New York Times’s annotated text of today’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade:

The crux of Justice Alito’s legal rationale is that the 14th Amendment’s protections of freedoms that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution must be limited to those rights that were understood to exist deep in the country’s history — especially around 1868, when that amendment was ratified. This is an example of “originalism,” in contrast to the more liberal interpretative method that views the Constitution as a living document whose meaning can evolve with society.

And yes, “Thomas’s concurring opinion raises questions about what rights might be next.”

Today is a dark day for freedom and dignity.

Two more posts on Alito’s thinking
“Indefensible” : Rights and wrongs, old and new