![new ebony gay porn free new ebony gay porn free](https://www.sexpaysitecentral.net/pic/cat/psc_4687_detail.jpg)
![new ebony gay porn free new ebony gay porn free](http://img.o-be.com/tmb/12/cc/19341557/240x180-5.jpg)
The sudden illegality of abortion in most states come June will also create new legal landmines that will rapidly erode other individual rights. They aim to hurt, punish and narrow the lives of Americans in many more cruel and inventive ways. The end of legal abortion will not be where the court’s reactionaries stop. This an interpretation that, if carried to its logical conclusion, would eradicate many of Americans’ other rights that the court has recognized based on so-called substantive due process concerns, among them the right to contraception, the right to gay marriage, and the decriminalization of gay sex. Photograph: Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images Pro-choice activists gather at the US supreme court in Washington DC after a leaked draft of a majority opinion that would shred nearly 50 years of constitutional protections on abortion. It articulates a rigid and unchanging vision of individual rights, one in which only those freedoms with robust historical precedent and explicit enumeration in the text of the constitution will be recognized by the court. The opinion does not just overturn Roe and Casey it expresses outright contempt for the notion that the constitution protects bodily autonomy for women. But Alito’s draft opinion nevertheless represents about as odiously maximalist an approach as the court could have taken. In a way, the leaked opinion didn’t tell us anything we did not already know: these are the last days of reproductive freedom in America, and most states will soon ban abortion outright, or restrict it so onerously that it is inaccessible within their borders. It was a joke, a festival of misogyny, an unserious legal formality providing a gossamer of legitimacy for a preordained outcome. Kavanaugh rattled off long lists all the decisions that the court had overturned in the past. The hearing, whose audio was live-streamed to the public, turned into a carnival of delusional hypotheticals and nodding insistence on the triviality of precedent.Īmy Coney Barrett asked why women needed abortion, now that “safe haven” laws allowed for new mothers to surrender newborns without being arrested. Feminists, meanwhile, were more consistent in measuring the depth of the right’s commitment to sexism and more perceptive in understanding the implications for other areas of the law in a world without Roe.īut after oral arguments on 1 December, even those pundits who were most committed to their performance of sophisticated calm had to admit that there was little doubt that this would be the outcome.