As far as the composition of the court is concerned, I think the only real difference between Dobbs and Roe (and Casey!) was that there was a court that was ideologically opposed to abortion.
Bulverism can be invoked in any SC decision at all. I can only say that plenty of people claimed for years that Roe v. Wade was judicially shaky, and reiterate that whether it has been or not, the court is not supposed to be goal-directed.
The Burger Court had substantially different judicial philosophies, and there is reason to believe Chief Justice Burger joined the Roe decision just so he could choose Justice Blackmun to write the opinion; the more senior Justice Douglas, like Justice Thomas today, was not a fan of judicial restraint when he disagreed with precedent. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson have not to my knowledge endorsed Justice Douglas’s expansive reading of the Ninth Amendment. They dissented from Dobbs on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
~Max
I don’t see how you can simultaneously claim for the same person a moral right to bodily autonomy and a moral obligation to surrender that right.
(I also disagree that knowingly violating one specific provision of the law puts one outside the social compact entirely. But at least you’re not contradicting yourself there — at least, not as long as you’re also applying that to speeding, drinking a beer at age 17, and all sorts of other laws.)
If the law does nothing, then expulsion from the profession and professional organizations and lifetime ostracism by society at large. They can die poor, alone and hated.
What happens when the shunned form their own organizations– which in the hypothetical would have the support of law and government– and thumb their noses at those who hate them?
They’ll escalate their persecution of women, of course.* And try to legally forbid women from fleeing their territory, which we are already seeing. Enabling persecution is the whole point of “state’s rights”.
- And eventually strip women of the right to vote and civil rights of any kind. Persecution isn’t *undemocratic" when you win all the votes because your victims aren’t allowed to vote in the first place. America has a long tradition of that kind of behavior and we are moving back to it.
As I wrote above, I don’t believe anybody’s moral right to bodily autonomy is violated unless there is intentional, unwanted, harmful physical contact. For example, that would occur where the law bans self-induced abortions and in those rare edge cases where the state intervenes to preserve a pregnancy, usually when the pregnant woman overdoses.
I disagree with that statement, too. I meant to say, the only time people should break the law is when they unilaterally withdraw from the social compact.
~Max
When the state is acting as an instrument for bigotry, there is no “social compact”. It’s simply the enemy. Something to be evaded, subverted, escaped or destroyed. If the law demands evil, then obeying it is evil.