Whenever one currently reads about the U.S. Supreme Court what you usually see are the current numbers of "conservative" and "liberal" justices, and the point made they are currently more "conservative" justices and thus the court is "conservative." But, are those justices really conservative? The Dobbs decision, perceived as "conservative" basically states that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion, and thus overturned Roe. I find that premise odd and in conflict to my understanding of American Conservatism which holds natural rights above all and defines the purpose of government and the Constitution that establishes it as being for the preservation of the rights.#

It's not the purpose of the U.S. Constitution to define the rights of the citizens of the United States and the prime evidence for this is the ninth amendment. Governments that claim and enforce sole power to declare what rights citizens have are considered tyrannical (in 1700 terms) or authoritarian. In fact, that was the very type of thing King George was doing to the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War and why there was a Declaration of Independence. #

We ought to not call the current U.S. Supreme Court as conservative at all, and the "conservative" justices are really fundamentalist ideologues who really seek to assert their world view, which has Christian Nationalist leanings because they feel their religious freedoms have been overrun by things like the U.S. government allowing abortions and gay marriage. These so-called conservative justices were put in place by The Federalist society that actually has been pretty open about how they are not themselves conservatives but are using the cloak of conservatism to obtain what they want. #

As an aside, we really need a discussion about what is religious freedom because some seem to think that granting rights to others somehow impinges on their religions freedom. Religious practice and the freedom to practice a faith does NOT give one the right to compel others to comply to your practices and beliefs. Allowing gay people to marry does not take away from a religious belief that gays should not marry nor does it compel churches to perform gay marriages. In short gay marriage does not impact your religious freedom in any way, it simply requires you to co-exist with people who do not practice your religion or hold your beliefs. #

Dobbs does not conserve rights, instead it takes away the right to liberty of women to make decisions about their bodies when they are pregnant that Roe confirmed. Dobbs narrows the definition of liberty, which is for conservatives is a fundamental natural right, one of the three specified in the Declaration, and thus is not really a conservative decision. Dobbs makes that decision by having sought and not finding literal statements of abortion being a right in the Constitution, and the act and consequence is the very reason why Madison did not originally incorporate content of the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution and why the ninth amendment was included. #

Finally, any government act, be it court decisions or legislation that takes away rights is dangerous, which is why the idea that rights are owned by citizens as stated by the ninth is so important. I believe Dobbs has dangerous unintended consequences. It really states liberty does not extend to everyone's natural right to control what happens to their bodies. For example, people who do not want vaccines and declare their right to control their body ought to be concerned because it seems government can in fact compel you to do things to your body that you do not want. People are dying from COVID, so to preserve the right to life of those at risk, you MUST take the COVID vaccine is not a stretch due to the Dobbs decision. #