The New York Times put out a lead editorial on Sunday in which it cautioned that overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion ruling, would result in the end of interracial marriage, repeating an incorrect assertion that has been circulated for days by the left.
According to news reports, some Democrats have claimed that the publication of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft decision on Roe is a “dangerous development.” States might even start to prohibit interracial marriage if Roe were to be reversed, they argued.
Justice Alito stated that this case was distinct from all other circumstances, since it involves a real potential life, and concluded: “Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to compromise existing precedents that do not pertain to abortion.”
Nonetheless, in an editorial titled “America Is Not Ready for the ending of Roe v. Wade,” the Times opined:
“Imagine that each state was free to make its own choice about whether or not Black people and white people can marry. Some states would accept such marriages, while others would probably not accept them. The laws would be a jumble, and interracial couples would be subjected to second-class treatment depending on where they resided.”
“In 2022, it appears to be a scenario beyond the pale. That’s because the Supreme Court unanimously determined that prohibiting interracial marriages, as 16 states at the time did, was unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. “The freedom to marry, or not marry, someone of another race is an inherent power of every person protected by our Constitution, and can’t be infringed by the state,” ruled the court in Loving v. Virginia.”
The Times claimed that allowing states to make their own rules would result in confusion. However, it did not point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions on interracial marriage and other forms of discrimination concerned the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which was not used to legalize abortion as a “right to privacy” found in the “penumbra” of the Constitution.
The Times editorial board, to be clear, has not spoken out against “sanctuary” municipalities and states for disagreeing on immigration law.
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
