How can any USSC justice avoid the moral concepts or ideals, such as “equal protection” or “due process of law.” When deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her own body in the self-interest of preventing harm to her body such as suffering a potential maternal death near the end of gestation?
When a man and woman consensually and legally produce an unwanted pregnancy there is no state interest because the state has only a legal interest that is blindfolded to moral values of the two parties involved.
I support moral reasoning in constitutional interpretation to derive meaning from ethical arguments to fill in gaps in the text to address situations unforeseen at the time of the founding based on what is fair and reasonable to the individual being granted thecright to life liberty and pursuit of happiness under “equal protection” and “due process of law.” In all affairs of mankind.
States shall not “deprive any person of . . . liberty without due process of law. But
If the concept of liberty we hold dear “presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct, the then Dobbs was wrongly decided both legally and morall.
Consensual sex strictly for pleasure is treated as a crime when unwanted pregnancy is the result. Only the woman is punished for a non-criminal act when the safest solution to her situation is blocked by the state for no reason other to force her to deliver the fetus to a live birth for society.
She is not given equal protection under the law as her partner avoids physical harm and thus receives no due process for the loss of liberty and physical harm the state requires her to endure.
hkrgy.23.06.13
#9,193
nf.24.07.26
