Nearly a decade ago now, when I began law school, a highlight of my first semester was a visit by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was kind enough to teach our civil procedure class for a day and share some of her experiences on the Supreme Court. Though small in stature, RBG was a giant in the law. We listened carefully to her every word and did our best to answer the tough questions she posed to us.
RBG also spoke warmly about her colleagues, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the first Latina to serve on the Court, and Justice Elena Kagan. RBG seemed to enjoy recounting a time someone asked: “How many women should be on the Court?” With a smile, she replied: “How about nine?”
For a young law school student, it was easier to feel hopeful about the Court at the time. Both as an institution that would defend our rights and eventually grow more representative of the country it served.
The news last week foreshadows a starkly different chapter, one in which the Court is prepared to weaken—and even take away—constitutional rights, including the fundamental right to privacy.
While we’ve heard arguments suggesting that no such right exists because the Constitution does not expressly mention it, the truth is that guarantees of privacy pervade our Constitution. The Constitution grants us a privacy to decide our beliefs (1st Amendment), a privacy in our home (3rd Amendment), a privacy related to our bodies and possessions (4th Amendment), and a privacy over personal information (5th Amendment), to name a few examples.
And for decades, the Supreme Court has decided so many important cases based on an understanding that people have a fundamental right to privacy. Yes, this includes a right to terminate a pregnancy (Roe v. Wade), but also the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), sexual autonomy (Lawrence v. Texas), and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit (Meyer v. Nebraska).
This is why—if the leaked draft of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is indicative of what’s to come—so many of our rights are at risk.
What this also means is that state legislatures represent the last line of defense. For the foreseeable future, it will be up to state lawmakers to protect autonomy over some of the most personal choices that we make and, more broadly, protect the very idea of self-determination in our democracy.
For that reason, it’s never been more important to have the right people in office who will stand up for our fundamental rights and block any effort to go backwards. As a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the 94th District, I will do everything in my power to accomplish that.
=======
Phil Hernandez was born and raised in Hampton Roads, attended local public schools, and received a Gates Millennium Scholarship, which made it possible for him to attend William & Mary and become the first in his family to graduate from college. Hernandez later served in President Obama’s White House, worked as a civil rights attorney, and became a trusted policy leader in Virginia. Phil is running in District 94 (an open seat) to represent the City of Norfolk in the Virginia House of Delegates. Support his candidacy here.