Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in an opinion siding with the 6-3 majority overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday that he thinks it is time for the nation’s highest court to revisit previous rulings regarding gay marriage and contraception.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ […] we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Resist the Mainstream reported:

Griswold v. Connecticut was a 1965 case in which the use of contraception by two married individuals was private and protected by the constitution. Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 case dealing with homosexual sex between two consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges was the 2015 case which would make homosexual marriage constitutionally protected.

Thomas called these rulings “demonstrably erroneous” and speculated that Roe v. Wade may be the first of multiple cases to consider for their unconsitutionality.

“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” Thomas added.

“To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights,” he continued.

“That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach,” Thomas concluded.

Critics of the Roe decision, the landmark 1973 ruling that overturned all state laws governing or restricting abortion at the time and legalized it across the country, have contended for decades that it was a gross violation of the Tenth Amendment, which says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

A syllabus of the majority ruling stated: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion that tossed out Roe, as well as the draft  He was joined in that judgment by the five other conservatives on the high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

The court’s three liberal justices filed a dissenting opinion to the ruling. Following the decision, liberal lawmakers and media personalities offered dire predictions about future court rulings.

“Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans,” former President Barack Obama, who has regularly been touted as a ‘constitutional scholar,’ complained on Twitter.

“Across the country, states have already passed bills restricting choice. If you’re looking for ways to respond, @PPFA, @USOWomen, and many other groups have been sounding the alarm on this issue for years—and will continue to be on the front lines of this fight,” he added.

“For more than a month, we’ve known this day was coming—but that doesn’t make it any less devastating,” Obama’s rant continued in a tweet that also contained a link to a lengthier statement.

Other liberals predictably complained about the ruling as well, including Ana Navarro, a CNN contributor and co-host of ABC’s far-left “The View.”

“Just yesterday, you can’t but be struck by the contrast, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled down the concealed weapon issue in New York and said it was not a states’ rights,” contributor and “The View” Navarro said during a debate on CNN with pro-life advocate Alice Stewart.

“So apparently states are allowed to regulate my uterus but not guns that kill people,” Navarro complained. “So I have a very hard time with the inconsistency and cherry-picking of what makes states’ rights.”