1. SCOTUSblog6/28/225 min
    2 reads1 comment
    2 reads
    You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • jeff1 year ago

      Dobbs also grants that contraception, etc., may be integral to a broader historical right — to privacy or autonomy. But abortion is not, says Dobbs, because it takes fetal life. Why is this doctrinally relevant? The idea, developed here, may be that privacy and autonomy guard a sphere over which the individual is sovereign, and which ends where harm to others begins: These rights cover acts that directly affect no one else, or just consenting adults (with one ultimately irrelevant exception). But abortion directly harms a non-consenting party — or rather, it’s rational, and so permissible, for states to think so.

      A worthwhile read that explains why the Dobbs decision might not lead to a cascade of other privacy-based decisions being overturned. We should probably start writing down some of these unwritten rights at any rate.