Give any friend a story

As a subscriber, you have 10 gifts to send every month. Anyone can read what you share.

The Supreme Court issued a decision on Friday allowing abortion providers in Texas to continue challenging a new law that prohibits the state from performing most abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. However, although the conservative majority did not completely close the door to abortion in Texas, the extent to which it has been opened allows only a glimmer of light.

Currently, the relevant law SB 8 is still on the book. Anyone who assists in providing illegal abortions-from providers to those who take women to the clinic-can still be prosecuted. Rowe v. Wade has basically been overturned in the state, and soon this shocking reality will not only become permanent there, but may also spread to other states.

As we have seen, a key component of women's rights and body autonomy is being denied.

In Friday’s objection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a shameless challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, He is a vicious defender of slavery in the South, and he insists that states have the right to'veto' or'repeal [y]' any federal law they disagree with."

I found the call to Calhoun, South Carolina, very compelling. Yes, he firmly believes in invalidity, that is, the idea that states can repeal federal laws, but he is also an angry racist who goes further than slave owners who regard slavery as a "necessary evil", but takes it Seen as positive goodness.

In a speech in the Senate in 1837, Calhoun criticized slavery as “growing with our society and institutions, and intertwined with them, destroying it is destroying our nation.” He continued:

But let me not be understood as an admission, even if it is implied, that the existing relationship between the two races in slavery countries is evil: far from it; I think it’s a good thing because it has so far proven against both All are beneficial, and it will continue to prove it if it is not troubled by the depraved spirit of abolition. I appeal to the facts. From the dawn of history to the present, the black race in Central Africa has never reached such a state of civilization and progress, not only physically but also morally and intellectually.

He would reiterate that slavery is "not evil, but a good-a positive good."

In fact, Calhoun’s stance on slavery and state rights was so harsh that he was called the father of division and the initiator of the civil war, even though he died 11 years before the war began.

In Calhoun's view, states have the right to control and oppress the body of blacks as they see fit, regardless of any actions to the contrary at the federal level. He believes that states should be able to choose whether they want slavery.

I see too many disturbing similarities between what happened nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now. I see that this country is on the verge of another civil war, because Calhounia’s impulse is being reborn.

Of course, there are huge and obvious differences. The civil war I have seen will not kill thousands of young people in the fighting. This is not to say that we have not seen a series of violence, but that this new war will be fought in courts, state capitols and ballot boxes, not in the fields.

This war is not only about the conquest of the blacks, but also about the conquest of all those who challenge the white racist patriarchy.

It will seek to fight back all "others": blacks, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ people, and, yes, women, especially liberals.

In some respects, the abortion battle now in court is a test case. Can the states put forward an argument that civil rights can be revoked at the state level? Can they say that everything that the constitution does not clearly stipulate should be left to the states?

The Constitution has remained silent since it was enacted in 1787. The last amendment was nearly 30 years ago, in 1992, when the states approved the 27th Amendment. When did Congress first approve the amendment? In 1789! Since there were not enough countries to approve it after it was passed, it only stagnated for 200 years.

All of us should be very worried about what we see in these abortion cases-not just the relatives and friends of women who may need an abortion or women who may need an abortion.

We should worry about whether we are at a turning point in the era of return.

The Times is committed to publishing various letters to the editor. We want to hear your thoughts on this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. This is our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.