Justice Samuel Alito, who is believed to have written the draft majority opinion that overturned abortion rights, stuffed the document with references to his colleagues’ positions.
Justice Clarence Thomas believes Alito includes claims that link abortion access with the racist eugenics movement. Thomas wrote a concurrent 20-page opinion on the 2019 debunked claim as part of an abortion case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett cites safe-haven laws. People can anonymously leave infants unwanted by safe haven laws, such as fire departments, through these drop-off points.
Alito mentions these in his section “this country is now the best place to be pregnant, single woman”. He also notes that the American abortionists promote the claims Alito gives space to.
He writes that “They note that attitudes regarding the pregnancy of unmarried females have changed dramatically; that federal laws ban discrimination based on pregnancy, and that leave for childbirth and pregnancy are now guaranteed in many cases; that insurance or government assistance covers the cost of medical care associated to pregnancy; that States have increasingly adopted safe haven’ laws that allow women to anonymously drop off their babies; and that a woman who places her baby up for adoption today doesn’t have to be afraid that it will find a home.”
He provides a footnote that points to an HHS report that states all 50 have passed safe-haven laws. Texas adopted its version in 1999.
This inclusion is a remembrance of December’s oral arguments when Barrett asked a pointed query that triggered a lot of internet outrage.
She wondered why abortions were necessary when there are safe haven laws that allow women to avoid the “consequences and obligations of parenthood”
She asked the attorney representing the abortion providers, “Why didn’t you address safe haven laws and why don’t they matter?”
Many people were shocked at Barrett’s insensitiveness to the question. Barrett was doing more than that. Barrett was communicating to the anti-abortion community.
The idea that safe-haven laws could replace abortion is a common belief. This is evident in the Supreme Court briefs, tweets by anti-abortion organizations, speeches from lawmakers, and even options listed on pregnancy crisis centers’ websites. These are all tentacles of anti-abortion movements that pretend to be health-care providers.
One anti-abortion activist wrote, “Abortion Is Permanent.” He defended a Texas ban on abortion and urged safe havens to be considered. “Pregnancy can last for months.”
There are logistical challenges in substituting. Although data is not available on safe havens, it is certain that abortions exceed safe haven surrenders each year. It is not possible to provide the infrastructure necessary for such an explosion of relinquishments.
Alito is, therefore, mimicking Barrett. He is using a loaded term knowing that anti-abortion activists will understand its history and what it does for the movement. You can revisit the complicated world of safe-haven laws right here.
