Question: Are Bolling v. Sharpe and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt both cases dealing with personal rights?
Context: Personal rights are the rights that a person has over their own body.  In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Person Rights are defined as "rights (as of personal security, personal liberty, and private property) appertaining to the person".  Among personal rights are associated rights to protect and safeguard the body, most obviously protected by the torts of assault and battery.  Furthermore, aspects of personality are protected, such as a person's reputation and honour, by the tort of defamation, and legislation protecting the privacy of individuals, and freedom of movement. The John Philip Sousa Middle School, formerly the John Philip Sousa Junior High School, is a public school located at 3650 Ely Place in SE area of Washington, D.C. Located in the city's Fort Dupont neighborhood, it serves grades 6-8.  Its school building, built in 1950, was the scene of civil rights action not long after its construction.  Twelve black students were denied admission to all-white school.  This action was eventually overturned in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision in "Bolling v. Sharpe", which made segregated public schools illegal in the District of Columbia.  The defeat of the legal doctrine "separate but equal" marked an early victory in the modern Civil Rights Movement.  The school was declared a National Historic Landmark in 2001 for its role in this action. Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp.  401 (D.D.C. 1967), was a federal court case filed by civil rights activist Julius W. Hobson against Superintendent Carl F. Hansen and the District of Columbia’s Board of Education on the charge that the current educational system deprived blacks and the poor of their right to equal educational opportunities relative to their white and affluent counterparts, on account of race and socioeconomic status.  Having established "de jure" segregation unconstitutional in "Bolling v. Sharpe" (1954), the federal court addressed questions of "de facto" segregation in D.C. schools, seen in the trends that survived legal desegregation, in "Hobson v. Hansen".  Judge J. Skelly Wright’s decision, in favor of the plaintiffs, sought to remedy the re-segregation or "de facto" segregation enforced by the educational policies, including tracking and optional-transfer zones, adopted by the Board of Education in an attempt to accommodate the consequences of the shift to integrated schools in the aftermath of "Bolling", and within the wider context of emerging racially and socioeconomically rigid residential patterns. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991) , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials.  "Edmonson" extended the court's similar decision in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), a criminal case.  The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in "Bolling v. Sharpe" (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.  Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown."  The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed."  "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive. The body which became the Personal Rights Association (PRA) was founded in England in 1871.  The 1913 Annual Report of the PRA records that 'On 14 March 1871, a meeting largely attended by sympathisers from various parts of England, was held in Manchester, to consider the possibility of forming a National League or Association for watching, restraining, and influencing legislation, especially in matters affecting the interests of women, and the personal rights and liberties of the people'.  A conference was held on 14 November in Liverpool and the Vigilance Association was founded.  The first issue of a journal was published on 15 January 1881 with the title "Journal of the Vigilance Association for the Defence of Personal Rights".  The quotation below the journal title was from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".  The 240th issue of the Journal, for February 1903, explained the reason for changing the title to "The Individualist" ('Monthly Journal of Personal Rights') was that it would 'be a more distinctive name'.  The graphic design of the journal's title showed its editorial policy resting on the twin pillars of "Freedom as wide as possible" and "Equality before the law".  The 1903 editorial explained that 'We shall not swerve from the principle which our little Society has persistently proclaimed for nearly a third of a century.  If the tide were running strongly in our favour, it might then be argued with some show of plausibility, but not so as to convince us, that we might rest and be thankful.  But the tide is running strongly against us.  Socialism is in the air.  Tyranny has assumed the garb of ethics, and Privilege essays to purchase for itself a renewed lease of life by "ransom" paid out of the pockets of its victims.  Never was there a time when it was more necessary for the lovers of freedom and justice to be up and doing'.  This was a time of debate between the proponents of Individualism and Socialism. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016.  The Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.  On June 28, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws.  Other states with similar laws may also be impacted. George Edward Chalmers Hayes (July 1, 1894 – December 20, 1968) was a Washington, DC lawyer who defended Annie Lee Moss on March 11, 1954.  He was the lead attorney in "Bolling v. Sharpe" (1954).  In 1955 he became the first African American to serve on the District of Columbia Public Utilities Commission. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must carry rules imposed on cable television companies.  "Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II)", 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second.  "Turner I" established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights.  In "Turner II" the court decided that the must carry provisions were constitutional.  Under the "Miami Herald v. Tornillo" case, it was unconstitutional to force a newspaper to run a story the editors would not have included absent a government statute because it was compelled speech which could not pass the strict scrutiny of a compelling state interest being achieved with the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state interest.  However, under the rule of "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC" the High Court held that a federal agency could regulate broadcast stations (TV and Radio) with far greater discretion.  In order for federal agency regulation of broadcast media to pass constitutional muster, it need only serve an important state interest and need not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means. Nancy Northup is the President of The Center for Reproductive Rights, in New York City.  The Center is a reproductive rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom including abortion rights in over 45 countries.  Under her leadership, the Center helped win Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Supreme Court case considered the most significant case won by the reproductive rights movement since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Answer: yes