Some of this Dobb's decision seems to be based on rejecting a federal, constitutional, or inalienable right to 'autonomy', and that such rights are deferred to the individual states. I wonder what that would mean for federally claimed religious objects to certain genetic engineering untested bioweapons.
Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right.
Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U. S., at 851.
Casey elaborated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Ibid.
The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible. While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about “existence,” “meaning,” the “universe,” and “the mystery of human life,” they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of “liberty,” but it is certainly not “ordered liberty.” Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.
https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Dobbs_Opinion.pdf
Edit: Don't get me wrong performing some action which would end the life of another will have consequences in natural law. It seems like abortions under 15 weeks, rapes, medical necessity will still occur everywhere so this whole thing only applies to a small percent of things.
Some of this Dobb's decision seems to be based on rejecting a federal, constitutional, or inalienable right to 'autonomy', and that such rights are deferred to the individual states. I wonder what that would mean for federally claimed religious objects to certain genetic engineering untested bioweapons.
Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right.
Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U. S., at 851.
Casey elaborated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Ibid.
The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible. While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about “existence,” “meaning,” the “universe,” and “the mystery of human life,” they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of “liberty,” but it is certainly not “ordered liberty.” Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.
https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Dobbs_Opinion.pdf