How does one reconcile the idea that if a right is not enumerated in the constitution then it is not a right with the ninth amendment that says:#

The right to control and chose what happens to one's body is for me fundamental to liberty. You don't find a clear statement in the Constitution that every citizen has the right to be free, because as the Declaration of Independence states, liberty is an "inalienable" right. A natural right. If necessary the ninth amendment cements that right. How does this decision by SCOTUS not infringe upon that right? #

An "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution suggests a belief that the original writers were right in their worldview and thinking. The worldview at the time the Constitution was written was a clear hierarchy, most would call it divine order, that put white men above women and people of color. The obvious evidence of this fact is the need for the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments to the Constitution that made people of color and women equal citizens and gave equal protection under the law. #

The problem is that majority does not rule in the United States because the Electoral College and the Senate make citizen's votes matter more depending on which state in which they live. The Electoral College, and thus the Constitution that defines it, is effectively gerrymandering at the state level. If the majority of people live in only a few urban areas, they are represented by a minority of senators and have a constrained influence of electing Presidents. When is the last time a Presidential race was decided by California? #

As the Constitution is currently constructed, the only way for the majority of citizens to true representation they need to move away from states like California and New York and toward states like Iowa and Ohio. #

What I find so infuriating is how the current SCOTUS justices see themselves so smart, so enlightened, that they know more and are better than all the prior justices over hundreds, in the case of the second amendment, and tens, in the case of Roe, of years. How can we rely on any Supreme Court decision when future justices are so willing to nullify prior decisions that they don't like. #

And congratulations Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, you got what you wanted, but compromised on all the values and teachings of Jesus that you claim to hold dear, and abortions will not be eliminated because a women needs to get an abortion is not based on whether or not is legal. #