By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – The draft opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would eliminate the constitutional right to abort could threaten other freedoms in marriage, sexuality, and family life, including birth control, same-sex nuptials and gender equality, legal experts say.

Draft ruling revealed in a leak, which prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to open an investigation. It would maintain a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 week of pregnancy, and reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that allowed the practice nationwide.

If the court adopts the draft’s legal reasoning when it makes its final ruling before June 30, this could put at risk other rights Americans have taken for granted. Elizabeth Sepper from the University of Texas, an expert on healthcare law and religion, said that the decision could be a threat to some of the rights Americans consider fundamental in their lives.

Sepper stated that contraception is the low-hanging fruits, possibly starting with emergency contraception. Same-sex marriage was also recently recognized by The Supreme Court.

Alito has been assertive in a variety of areas, as the court’s conservative 6-3 majority. While the court confirmed that the leaked draft was authentic, they considered it preliminary.

Roe, one of 20th-century’s most controversial and important rulings, acknowledged that a woman can terminate her pregnancy by exercising her right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution.

Roe was wrong right from the beginning. Alito wrote that Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning. The decision’s consequences were severe.” Alito added in the draft. She also stated that Roe and another 1992 decision that reiterated it had only “deepened” division in society.

Alito argues that Roe’s abortion right must be overturned as it violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment right of due process.

The court has over the years recognized abortion as one of a variety of fundamental rights, which include contraception in 1965 and interracial marriages in 1967, as well that was same-sex marriage in 2015.

Although these rights do not appear in the Constitution explicitly, they relate to individual privacy, dignity, and equality. Conservative critics have claimed that substantive due-process principle allows nonelected justices to decide policy decisions better left to lawmakers.

Alito stated in his draft that substantive due processes rights had to be “deeply rooted” in U.S. tradition and history, and necessary for “scheme of ordered freedom.” He said that abortion is not necessary for bodily autonomy and privacy reasons.

‘SOCIAL PROGRESS’

Conservative justices could find that other personal rights such as contraception and same-sex marital rights fall outside of this framework. Scholars pointed out that these rights were “deeply embedded” in American history.

Carol Sanger of Columbia Law School, an expert on reproductive rights, said that this was social progress.

Alito wanted to make a distinction between abortion and other rights in the draft because, unlike others, it destroys “potentially life” as defined by the Roe ruling.

Alito stated, “Nothing contained in this opinion should not be taken to doubt precedents that don’t concern abortion.”

Sepper stated that Alito was “not very convincing” because he didn’t perform the necessary work to differentiate these cases. Elle added, “It is a very broad opinion. When it comes to abortion rights, the organization doesn’t mince words.

Alito’s opinion mirrors that of his dissension from the same-sex court ruling, in which Alito stated the 14th Amendment’s due process promise only protects those rights deeply rooted within America’s history.

Alito stated in 2015 that “it is undisputed that the right of same-sex marriage does not count among these rights.”

Some conservative commentators suggest that Alito provided a roadmap for the future elimination of other guaranteed liberties. Some legal scholars question whether there’s a will on the part of legislators and courts to remove other rights.

John McGinnis, Northwestern University’s law professor said that there was no chance the court would reconsider his decisions on interracial marriage, contraception or same-sex marriage.

McGinnis stated that Americans have used the same-sex marriage decision as a way to plan their lives and make investments in their relationships. It is unlikely that justices will reverse this.

McGinnis stated, “No state legislature can get rid contraception.” That’s fanciful. It is unlikely that any state legislature will abolish interracial marital relationships.

Ilya Somin from George Mason University, professor of constitutional law, said Alito’s judgment could lead to the court not recognising due process protections in areas such as transgender and gender rights.

Somin stated that “but on the overall its effect on due-process rights is likely to not be significant.”