BREAKING: Here’s The Media’s BIGGEST LIE On Roe v Wade Decision

The media flip out on Roe v Wade has been expectedly INSANE.

One of the biggest lies perpetuated by the fake news since the court decision has been that the court stated its intention to use this ruling to repeal gay marriage rights and the right to use contraceptives.

CNN ran the headline “Supreme Court’s decision on abortion could open the door to overturn same-sex marriage, contraception and other major rulings.”
ABC News ran the headline “Supreme Court opens door to overturning rights to contraceptives, same-sex relationships and marriage.”

They are hinging this premise on the suggestion of Justice Thomas that the court should review other cases that were justified on weak legal grounds.

Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

This is not a suggestion that these rights should not exist, but that they should be codified in ACTUAL LAW rather than in a legal philosophy with no Constitutional standing. Of course, that’s too nuanced of an opinion for the mainstream to understand.

But the Justices already made it easy for them, if they were actually looking for clarity…

On page 71 of the Majority opinion, they state:

“Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.” Supra, at 32. It is hard to see how we could be clearer.”

If only the fake news would use the facts to DEBUNK their insane rumors.