>> Which is why those who deny unenumerated rights like privacy are wrongheaded.
The right to privacy is secure.
I think you don't fully appreciate the complexity of the opinion in Dobbs. There exists a conflict between the privacy of the pregnant woman and that of the as yet unborn human. In Roe and Casey, the fetus was carefully termed "potential life"; however, in Dobbs, the case was about an "unborn human being", a point not previously raised. It does change the nature of the decision, Lane, because an "unborn human being" possesses its own right to privacy.
You can, of course, argue that the Court stretched its meaning, but intuitively, it seems to me a reasonably strong basis for the decision. Does the pregnant woman's "right to privacy" supersede that right in an "unborn human being"?
So, I get that it was a complicated case and there were multiple lines of discussion, but if one is trying to suggest "unenumerated rights like privacy [of the pregnant woman]" override those rights in an "unborn human being", I think that case is at least borderline and probably specious.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but the Dobbs case does not conflict with the notion of "protection of rights"; it really extends that protection to a broader class including as-yet unborn children, a class that deserves that protection more today than ever. |
