Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 175

28  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

without regard to original intentions—a way of actually fol-
lowing  where  logic  leads,  rather  than  tolerating  hard-to- 
explain lines.  Rights can expand in that way.  Dissenting
in Lawrence, Justice Scalia explained why he took no com-
fort in the Court’s statement that a decision recognizing the 
right to same-sex intimacy did “not involve” same-sex mar-
riage.  539 U. S., at 604.  That could be true, he wrote, “only
if  one  entertains  the  belief  that  principle  and  logic  have
nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.”  Id., at 605. 
Score one for the dissent, as a matter of prophecy.  And logic
and principle are not one-way ratchets.  Rights can contract
in the same way and for the same reason—because what-
ever today’s majority might say, one thing really does lead 
to  another.  We  fervently  hope  that  does  not  happen  be-
cause of today’s decision.  We hope that we will not join Jus-
tice Scalia in the book of prophets.  But we cannot under-
stand how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will
be the last of its kind. 

Consider,  as  our  last  word  on  this  issue,  contraception.
The  Constitution,  of  course,  does  not  mention  that  word. 
And there is no historical right to contraception, of the kind
the majority insists on.  To the contrary, the American legal
landscape  in  the  decades  after  the  Civil  War  was  littered
with  bans  on  the  sale  of  contraceptive  devices.    So  again,
there seem to be two choices.  See supra, at 5, 26–27.  If the 
majority is serious about its historical approach, then Gris-
wold and its progeny are in the line of fire too.  Or if it is 
not serious, then . . . what is the basis of today’s decision? 
If we had to guess, we suspect the prospects of this Court
approving bans on contraception are low.  But once again,
the future significance of today’s opinion will be decided in
the future.  At the least, today’s opinion will fuel the fight
to get contraception, and any other issues with a moral di-
mension, out of the Fourteenth Amendment and into state