Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 163.0

16  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

now,  grants  rights  to  women,  though  it  did  not  in  1868? 
How  is  it  that  our  Constitution  subjects  discrimination 
against them to heightened judicial scrutiny?  How is it that 
our Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment’s lib-
erty clause, guarantees access to contraception (also not le-
gally protected in 1868) so that women can decide for them-
selves  whether  and  when  to  bear  a  child?    How  is  it  that 
until  today,  that  same  constitutional  clause  protected  a 
woman’s  right,  in  the event  contraception  failed,  to end a 
pregnancy in its earlier stages? 

The answer is that this Court has rejected the majority’s
pinched view of how to read our Constitution.  “The Found-
ers,”  we  recently  wrote,  “knew  they  were  writing  a  docu-
ment  designed  to  apply  to  ever-changing  circumstances
over  centuries.”  NLRB  v.  Noel  Canning,  573  U. S.  513, 
533–534 (2014).  Or in the words of the great Chief Justice 
John Marshall, our Constitution is “intended to endure for 
ages  to  come,”  and  must  adapt  itself  to  a  future  “seen 
dimly,” if at all.  McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 
(1819).  That is indeed why our Constitution is written as it 
is.  The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that 
the world changes.  So they did not define rights by refer-
ence to the specific practices existing at the time.  Instead, 
the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit fu-
ture  evolution  in  their  scope  and  meaning.    And  over  the 
course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers’ 
invitation.  It has kept true to  the Framers’ principles by
applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal un-
derstandings and conditions.

Nowhere has that approach been more prevalent than in
construing the majestic but open-ended words of the Four-
teenth  Amendment—the  guarantees  of  “liberty”  and 
“equality” for all.  And nowhere has that approach produced
prouder moments, for this country and the Court.  Consider 
an  example  Obergefell  used  a  few  years  ago.  The  Court