Regarding Roe and the Court's decision to overturn it in Dobbs, I think this issue turns on how broadly or narrowly one construes the right. In reading the opinions of conservative justices in Roe and Dobbs, they narrowly frame the right as the right to an abortion and whether this is constitutionally protected. However, the liberal justices tend to frame it as a broader right of reproductive choice. I find myself agreeing with the latter formulation that the liberty involved in these cases isn't strictly the liberty/right to get an abortion but rather the liberty/right to make choices for oneself, including whether one wants to be a parent (or if they do, how they want to raise/parent the child). People have the capacity to make decisions for themselves regarding the trajectory of their own lives, and we trust that each person will make the decision that's best for themselves. To not adhere to this would be to encourage the development of an overly-paternalistic government.
I am reminded from cases like Faretta v. California, where the Supreme Court decided that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to represent themselves and forgo the assistance of counsel. The Court stated that forcing a person to be represented by council would be the equivalent of imprisoning them in a box of their constitutional rights. The same way that the state cannot force you to forgo parenthood, it should also not be able to force a person into parenthood or carrying a pregnancy to term.
Additionally, we trust that parents will also make the best decisions they can for their children. That is why parents have the freedom to enroll in their kids in public, private, or homeschool. Parents who homeschool have freedom in determining what the child will learn. Similarly, I think there is an argument to be made that an impoverished woman who struggles to afford her own cost of living is making the best possible decision for the potential human life when she receives an abortion because it spares the fetus from the harsh conditions and negative health outcomes associated with poverty.
You’re right that the Roe–Dobbs debate really turns on how the right is framed. Importantly, that framing doesn’t just change the wording; it also changes the analysis. If the right is described narrowly as just “abortion,” then the Court asks: was abortion historically protected? That’s Dobbs’ approach, and it leads to looking backward in time. But if the right is described more broadly as the liberty to make intimate decisions about family and life’s direction, the Court instead asks: what kinds of choices are so central to dignity and autonomy that they deserve protection? That’s closer to Roe and Casey.
I think dignity is a meaningful constitutional principle when it is used in a consistent way to protect individual autonomy and identity defining choices, but without clear standards it can be considered judicial camouflage - working as an abstract label to mask rulings considered subjective. This just leaves me wondering how dignity can mean one thing in one case and the complete opposite in another.
Dignity can feel vague if it isn’t tied to clear rules. One way to fix that is to use dignity as a way to explain WHY rights like liberty and equality matter, not as its own separate right. This keeps dignity important but stops it from becoming just a label judges can use to reach any result. It adds meaning without replacing clear legal standards.
Regarding Roe and the Court's decision to overturn it in Dobbs, I think this issue turns on how broadly or narrowly one construes the right. In reading the opinions of conservative justices in Roe and Dobbs, they narrowly frame the right as the right to an abortion and whether this is constitutionally protected. However, the liberal justices tend to frame it as a broader right of reproductive choice. I find myself agreeing with the latter formulation that the liberty involved in these cases isn't strictly the liberty/right to get an abortion but rather the liberty/right to make choices for oneself, including whether one wants to be a parent (or if they do, how they want to raise/parent the child). People have the capacity to make decisions for themselves regarding the trajectory of their own lives, and we trust that each person will make the decision that's best for themselves. To not adhere to this would be to encourage the development of an overly-paternalistic government.
I am reminded from cases like Faretta v. California, where the Supreme Court decided that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to represent themselves and forgo the assistance of counsel. The Court stated that forcing a person to be represented by council would be the equivalent of imprisoning them in a box of their constitutional rights. The same way that the state cannot force you to forgo parenthood, it should also not be able to force a person into parenthood or carrying a pregnancy to term.
Additionally, we trust that parents will also make the best decisions they can for their children. That is why parents have the freedom to enroll in their kids in public, private, or homeschool. Parents who homeschool have freedom in determining what the child will learn. Similarly, I think there is an argument to be made that an impoverished woman who struggles to afford her own cost of living is making the best possible decision for the potential human life when she receives an abortion because it spares the fetus from the harsh conditions and negative health outcomes associated with poverty.
You’re right that the Roe–Dobbs debate really turns on how the right is framed. Importantly, that framing doesn’t just change the wording; it also changes the analysis. If the right is described narrowly as just “abortion,” then the Court asks: was abortion historically protected? That’s Dobbs’ approach, and it leads to looking backward in time. But if the right is described more broadly as the liberty to make intimate decisions about family and life’s direction, the Court instead asks: what kinds of choices are so central to dignity and autonomy that they deserve protection? That’s closer to Roe and Casey.
I think dignity is a meaningful constitutional principle when it is used in a consistent way to protect individual autonomy and identity defining choices, but without clear standards it can be considered judicial camouflage - working as an abstract label to mask rulings considered subjective. This just leaves me wondering how dignity can mean one thing in one case and the complete opposite in another.
Dignity can feel vague if it isn’t tied to clear rules. One way to fix that is to use dignity as a way to explain WHY rights like liberty and equality matter, not as its own separate right. This keeps dignity important but stops it from becoming just a label judges can use to reach any result. It adds meaning without replacing clear legal standards.