When Roe v. Wade was overturned, it stoked fears in some Americans that this could be a stepping stone to overruling the right to gay marriage as well, or the right to use contraception, or the right to not be sterilized. How will Dobbs affect these wide-ranging cases that also have to do with privacy? What are its ripple effects on Douglas’s ideas about penumbras?
Instead of looking at "punumbras," the Court now wants a very specific history-based test. That’s why people are asking: if the Court steps away from penumbras, do rights like contraception, marriage equality, or even bodily integrity (like protection from sterilization) still have the same footing?
I know that some countries explicitly state both privacy and personal autonomy within their constitutional frameworks, resulting in a sense of clearer guidance for their courts. Germany, for example, grounds many individual rights in the inherent dignity of the person, which serves as a strong foundation for protecting both reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. So, I find that this contrasts deeply with the US approach within Griswold, where these rights had to be inferred through "penumbras" of other guarantees. Could these more direct legal models help create a more consistent or democratic alternative to the uncertainty the US still debates today, or do you think an application of this kind is impossible in today day and age?
A more direct model like Germany’s could offer more stability and clarity. But without major cultural and legal shifts in the U.S., courts will likely keep struggling with how to protect unspoken rights in a system built on old, vague language.
Your question also points to how lasting protections depend not just on what the Constitution says, but on what our society is willing to value and defend.
When Roe v. Wade was overturned, it stoked fears in some Americans that this could be a stepping stone to overruling the right to gay marriage as well, or the right to use contraception, or the right to not be sterilized. How will Dobbs affect these wide-ranging cases that also have to do with privacy? What are its ripple effects on Douglas’s ideas about penumbras?
Instead of looking at "punumbras," the Court now wants a very specific history-based test. That’s why people are asking: if the Court steps away from penumbras, do rights like contraception, marriage equality, or even bodily integrity (like protection from sterilization) still have the same footing?
I dig into this shift here: https://www.profuddin.com/p/the-time-machine-constitution?r=2xk8n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I know that some countries explicitly state both privacy and personal autonomy within their constitutional frameworks, resulting in a sense of clearer guidance for their courts. Germany, for example, grounds many individual rights in the inherent dignity of the person, which serves as a strong foundation for protecting both reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. So, I find that this contrasts deeply with the US approach within Griswold, where these rights had to be inferred through "penumbras" of other guarantees. Could these more direct legal models help create a more consistent or democratic alternative to the uncertainty the US still debates today, or do you think an application of this kind is impossible in today day and age?
A more direct model like Germany’s could offer more stability and clarity. But without major cultural and legal shifts in the U.S., courts will likely keep struggling with how to protect unspoken rights in a system built on old, vague language.
Your question also points to how lasting protections depend not just on what the Constitution says, but on what our society is willing to value and defend.