The Constitution is clear: Justices of the Supreme Court may not uphold state prohibitions against elective pre-viable abortions simply because the Constitution does not expressly grant to women the right to an abortion.
Justice Clarence Thomas is an originalist, which means he claims to interpret the Constitution as the founders originally understood it.
Both textualists and originalists on the Supreme Court bench ought to know this. But are they willing to apply the law of the land, as it is, or ignore it, and place their values above it? In his oral argument, Thomas asked Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general of the United States: “General, would you specifically tell me—specifically state what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?”
Arbitrarily diminishing the exercise of a woman’s personal right to abort an unwanted pregnancy by the states disparages this personal right in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution may not be interpreted in a manner that disparages our personal though unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment says so: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.