Just a quick skim, it says no such thing, everyone know the 14th amendment was specifically written to make the now free slaves US citizens, Indians were not included .
Quick recap:
13thA: ended slavery and involuntary servitude except labor of convicted prisoners.
14th A Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the US whose and privileges and immunities can't be abridged. Every
person has rights to life, liberty, and property that can't be denied without due process. They all have to have equal protection (including ex-slaves/indentured servants.
Section 2: guarantees the proper apportionment for representation and also the right to vote of
men aged 21, a common age instead of states' choices.
(Native Americans who didn't pay taxes weren't citizens as they were members of foreign nations/tribes).
Women couldn't vote, so there had to be a later amendment for that, but "person" was used for running for office and women did run (though of course they lost).
The citizenship clause was important later: when a law made US women who married foreign men ineligible for citizenship (because of discriminatory immigration laws) lose their citizenship, the Supreme Court finally said this was unconstitutional.
The part of the 14th A about persons had to apply to female ex-slaves. Slave owners had made female slaves pregnant, by raping them or getting male slaves to persuade them, to use them to breed more slaves. The liberty of persons to choose to marry and have a family and kids was considered very important and guaranteed by this amendment. The state obviously should not have had the right to force ex-slave persons to go through pregnancy to use them to breed more persons.
Alito tried to argue that the 14th A liberty didn't apply in two ways.
1) As children women were under fathers and as married women, under coverture, merged with their husbands' persons, and, as they couldn't vote, they weren't political persons. But women were counted as persons in every Census and unmarried but marriageable women and widows weren't under coverture. They could inherit property, including real estate, own and run businesses, make contracts, and choose to marry or not.
Slave women weren't recognized as married, and when the 14th A was written, there were a lot of unmarried ex-slaves with these "liberties." Long ago, Locke had clarified that the liberty in "life, liberty, and property" meant "the enjoyment of one's own body, health, limbs," etc. You naturally have a right to your health.
Of course, premarital sex was a crime, but the punishments, for both men and women, in the 1700s, were whippings/stocks or jail plus fines. We would not accept whippings/stocks as legal today, but jail plus fines seems a lot safer than pregnancy, which very often harms women's health. So an unmarried woman who had premarital sex could have been punished, but the state had no good reason to force continuation of pregnancy.
2) Alito argued that abortion was not included in the 14th A liberty because it was a unique act that ended a potential life or "unborn human being." However, he knew embryos and fetuses had never been considered persons in the Constitution and had no rights. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution sacralizes "potential life."
The only possible compelling interest a state could have was to force her to reproduce for the state, and this is so clear a parallel to a slave owner forcing a female slave to reproduce for the slave owner.
The NYT article also refers to the Skinner v Oklahoma case of 1942, the first case where there is mention of the right to reproductive autonomy in relation to the 14th A right, tho' it concerns a man and state sterilization. The SC said you can't sterilize a guy for one crime if you don't for another crime with equivalent punishment, but it also said it violated the guy's reproductive autonomy (the crime wasn't sex abuse of kids or rape). The point is that the 14th A covers reproductive autonomy.
Alito's weakness is that, as a Catholic, he really thinks the embryo is a person, and so he suggests that the state's interest is in the "potential life" of an "unborn human being." But it should not have a right to force an ex-slave to reproduce human beings for the state. By extension, it shouldn't force any woman to do so, but it seems telling that, today, its doing so is more of a danger to the health and life of African American pregnant women than to others. Without fetal personhood, his argument is BS.
