Saudi Press

Saudi Arabia and the world
Sunday, Jun 01, 2025

Guns and abortion: Contradictory decisions, or consistent?

They are the most fiercely polarizing issues in American life: abortion and guns. And two momentous decisions by the Supreme Court in two days have done anything but resolve them, firing up debate about whether the court’s conservative justices are being faithful and consistent to history and the Constitution — or citing them to justify political preferences.
To some critics, the rulings represent an obvious, deeply damaging contradiction. How can the court justify restricting the ability of states to regulate guns while expanding the right of states to regulate abortion?

“The hypocrisy is raging, but the harm is endless,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday after the court released its decision on abortion.

To supporters, the court’s conservatives are staying true to the country’s founding principles and undoing errors of the past.

The court corrected a historic wrong when it voided a right to abortion that has stood for nearly 50 years, former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday. On Twitter, he said the decision returned to Americans the power to “govern themselves at the state level in a manner consistent with their values and aspirations.”

Opponents of Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 ruling that upheld the right to abortion, say the Supreme Court back then did just what some accuse the majority justices of doing now, adapting and twisting legal arguments to fit political positions.

Members of the court’s current conservative majority, laying out their thinking in this week’s decisions, have been quite consistent, sticking to the words of the country’s founders and the precedents of history that reach back even further, those supporters say.

In both decisions, the majority makes the case that if a right is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, the bar for any government regulation of that right is extremely high. But if a right is not explicit, state and federal governments have greater leeway to impose regulations.

To those who study the court, though, the reality is more complicated.

A number agree that, for all the controversy of the rulings, the majority justices at least followed a consistent legal theory in issuing the decisions on abortion and guns.

“I understand how it might look hypocritical, but from the perspective of the conservative majority on the court, it’s a consistent approach to both cases,” said Richard Albert, law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “I’m not saying it’s correct, by the way, but from their perspective it is completely consistent and coherent.”

Consistency, though, cannot mask the fact that there has been a seismic shift on the court since President Donald Trump appointed three conservatives. And that is likely to further muddy public perceptions of an institution that prefers to see itself as being above politics, court watchers say.

Both decisions “come from the same court whose legitimacy is plummeting,” said Laurence Tribe, a leading scholar of Constitutional law and emeritus professor at the Harvard Law School.

The court majority’s decisions on gun rights and the ruling a day later on abortion both rely on a philosophy of constitutional interpretation called “originalism.” To assess what rights the Constitution confers, originalists hone in on what the texts meant when they were written.

Opinions by originalists are often laden with detailed surveys of history, as both these rulings are.

The bulk of Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion on gun rights is devoted to history and what it says about the Founders’ intentions when they crafted the Second Amendment and when lawmakers crafted the 14th Amendment on due process in the 1860s. Thomas broached a long list of historical figures, including the English King Henry VIII, who the ruling says worried that the advent of handguns threatened his subjects’ proficiency with the longbow.

The abortion ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito similarly delves deep into the past, concluding that there was nothing in the historical record supporting a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

“Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single state,” Alito wrote.

This week’s two decisions are more legally consistent than critics suggest, said Jonathan Entin, a law professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“We can debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment does explicitly talk about the right to keep and bear arms, whereas the right to abortion access is not explicitly in the Constitution,” he said. “If that’s where you are going to go, then maybe these decisions are not in such tension after all.”

Not all observers agree.

“I think there is a double standard going on here,” said Barry McDonald, a professor of law at Pepperdine University, reviewing the justices’ arguments that both decisions are grounded in a strict reading of the law and of history. That logic is shaky, he said, given the conclusion by many legal historians that the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, much narrower than the court majority insists.

Most ordinary Americans, though, will be unfamiliar with such intricate legal theory. Instead, many will size up the court’s actions based on their perceptions of the justices’ motives and the personal implications of the decisions, experts said.

Many are likely to view the rulings as the direct result of Trump’s appointments and the justices’ determination to carry out his agenda, making the court “more of an institution of politics than it is of law,” McDonald said.

Tribe said the court’s majority has embraced an imaginary past and its claims that is only upholding the law are false. The majority justices can assert that they have been legally consistent. But taken together, he said, the decisions on guns and abortion create a whiplash effect from a court that claims to be protecting individual rights, then effectively limited many Americans’ control over their own bodies.

“I think the decisions point in radically different directions,” Tribe said, “but the one thing they have in common is they are decided by a new, emboldened majority that knows no limits on its own power and is perfectly willing to toss over precedent in the name of a version of originalism that really doesn’t hold together.”
Newsletter

Related Articles

Saudi Press
0:00
0:00
Close
OPEC+ Agrees to Increase Oil Output for Third Consecutive Month
Turkey Detains Istanbul Officials Amid Anti-Corruption Crackdown
Meta and Anduril Collaborate on AI-Driven Military Augmented Reality Systems
EU Central Bank Pushes to Replace US Dollar with Euro as World’s Main Currency
European and Arab Ministers Convene in Madrid to Address Gaza Conflict
U.S. Health Secretary Ends Select COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations
Trump Warns Putin Is 'Playing with Fire' Amid Escalating Ukraine Conflict
India and Pakistan Engage Trump-Linked Lobbyists to Influence U.S. Policy
U.S. Halts New Student Visa Interviews Amid Enhanced Security Measures
Trump Administration Cancels $100 Million in Federal Contracts with Harvard
SpaceX Starship Test Flight Ends in Failure, Mars Mission Timeline Uncertain
King Charles Affirms Canadian Sovereignty Amid U.S. Statehood Pressure
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Founder Warns Against Trusting Regime in Nuclear Talks
UAE Offers Free ChatGPT Plus Subscriptions to Citizens
Lebanon Initiates Plan to Disarm Palestinian Factions
Iran and U.S. Make Limited Progress in Nuclear Talks
The Daily Debate: The Fall of the Dollar — Strategic Reset or Economic Self-Destruction?
Trump Administration's Tariff Policies and Dollar Strategy Spark Global Economic Debate
OpenAI Acquires Jony Ive’s Startup for $6.5 Billion to Build a Revolutionary “Third Core Device”
Turkey Weighs Citizens in Public as Erdoğan Launches National Slimming Campaign
Saudi-Spanish Business Forum Commences in Riyadh
Saudi Arabia and Spain Sign MoU to Boost SME Sectors
UK Suspends Trade Talks with Israel Amid Gaza Offensive
Iran and U.S. Set for Fifth Round of Nuclear Talks Amid Rising Tensions
Russia Expands Military Presence Near Finland Amid Rising Tensions
Indian Scholar Arrested in Crackdown Over Pakistan Conflict Commentary
Israel Eases Gaza Blockade Amid Internal Dispute Over Military Strategy
President Biden’s announcement of advanced prostate cancer sparked public sympathy—but behind closed doors, Democrats are in panic
A Chinese company made solar tiles that look way nicer than regular panels!
Indian jet shootdown: the all-robot legion behind China’s PL-15E missiles
The Chinese Dragon: The True Winner in the India-Pakistan Clash
Australia's Venomous Creatures Contribute to Life-Saving Antivenom Programme
The Spanish Were Right: Long Working Hours Harm Brain Function
Did Former FBI Director Call for Violence Against Trump? Instagram Post Sparks Uproar
US and UAE Partner to Develop Massive AI Data Center Complex
Apple's $95 Million Siri Settlement: Eligible Users Have Until July 2 to File Claims
US and UAE Reach Preliminary Agreement on Nvidia AI Chip Imports
President Trump and Elon Musk Welcomed by Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim with Cybertruck Convoy
Strong Warning Issued: Do Not Use General Chatbots for Medical, Legal, or Educational Guidance
Saudi Arabia Emerges as Global Tech Magnet with U.S. Backing and Trump’s Visit
This was President's departure from Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince personally escorted him back to the airport.
NVIDIA and Saudi Arabia Launch Strategic Partnership to Establish AI Centers
Trump Meets Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara in Historic Encounter
Trump takes a blow torch to the neocons and interventionists while speaking to the Saudis
US and Saudi Arabia Sign Landmark Agreements Across Multiple Sectors
Why Saudi Arabia Rolled Out a Purple Carpet for Donald Trump Instead of Red
Elon Musk Joins Trump Meeting in Saudi Arabia
Trump says it would be 'stupid' not to accept gift of Qatari plane
Quantum Computing Threatens Bitcoin Security
Michael Jordan to Serve as Analyst for NBA Games
×