Further validation and reflection on why Dobbs was wrongly decided
With Dobbs being decided on June 24, I have seen from the other side of Twitter that this is good for democracy, that the individual has more control with the state legislature, etc. etc.
The only thing is, I see this is as a power grab.
We saw this in Michigan this week when a board blocked the abortion referendum that was set to be on the ballot this fall. If we're going to talk about democracy, then is suppression of it. State legislature bans on abortion since June 24 cannot be constituted as democracy because they were elected by their constituents at a time when Roe was still upheld as legal precedent, and we must account that a person conservative on economic issues may not be conservatives on issues across the spectrum. States legislatures like Indiana passing Senate Bill 1, and then rejecting a referendum to make abortion a ballot initiative is not democracy, that's a power grab.
Let's keep in mind that no state has had a ballot initiative on abortion since August 2 when Kansans overwhelmingly voted no, which tells me Republican controlled state legislatures have their own agenda contrary to the will of their constituents. States like Mississippi have tried to ban its own citizens from traveling out of state for the procedure, though even Kavanaugh believes states cannot do this.
I would also like to bring forth the Constitutional arguments as to why I believe it was wrongly decided.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
People might argue whether or not this includes abortion at the time of the penning of the Constitution, but their side argues that free speech on the First Amendment applies to modern day technology and platforms, while the Second Amendment also applies to modern day machinery. If we are to use this logic, then the Ninth Amendment also applies to modern day things as well.
There's also the Incorporation Doctrine of the Bill of the Rights applying to the states. The Ninth Amendment is one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, making it one of the Bill of Rights. So, a state cannot deny a person their Ninth Amendment rights under this doctrine, not to mention the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I also disagree with the notion that abortion is not deeply rooted in this nation's history. We're talking about a Constitution dating back to 1787 when the very first law against abortion came in 1821, 30 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and more than 30 years after the writing and ratification of the document. Therefore, abortion was technically legal throughout the land those 30+ years and given the challenges there have been on both sides to the issue, not to mention the Women's Rights Movement being a prominent chapter and important part of our history, I could conclude that abortion is, indeed, deeply rooted in our history.
Given that Justice Alito gave a public speech mocking foreign world leaders and also slamming non-believers like myself, that can insinuate to me the judicial activism that Dobbs is, and he simply dressed up in legalese.
People might say the court's job is to interpret the Constitution, but if the Constitution allows for the death and/or horrible suffering of women because they cannot be given the care they needed, does the Constitution really work for us? Is it really what's right for us in the year 2022?
Another thing for people to sink their teeth into is how Republicans have behaved since June 24, not just the power grabs by state legislatures and state officials refusing to put the issue on the ballot, but also the behavior of candidates. Blake Masters is a perfect example of somebody who had scrubbed the issue from their campaign website, though screenshots prove otherwise what was said before. If Dobbs was correctly decided, why are people like Blake Masters not openly running on the forced birth issue?
No matter what right wingers think, a state cannot encroach on its citizens and it's more important for the federal government to protect its citizens from state encroachment than for said state to have the right to do so.
Abortion, like marriage and other unenumerated rights, are not state issues, but individual rights and issues, and the federal government is within its purview to accordingly to take action in affirmation of these rights.
As stories keep coming out, it will further validate my belief that Dobbs was wrongly decided to take a decision away from the individual person and place it into the hands of state legislature enacting Draconian policy - thus not decreasing the size of government, but increasing it.