Reflections on Dobbs v Jackson

My six-part series on the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson has been picked up and republished as a single essay by Kuyperian Commentary: Reflections on Dobbs v Jackson. An excerpt:

[W]hen a particular group asserts a right not contained in a written constitution or previously unacknowledged in the unwritten constitution, such a claim must be adjudicated by a generally recognized authority. At the outset such a claim to a right is only that: a claim. Those making such a claim must make their case in the proper forum along with those who might have legitimate reasons to contest the claim. Justice requires, not simply acknowledging the claim, but hearing all sides, weighing the issue according to recognized principles of justice anchored in the law, and deciding whether the claimed right, either in whole or in part, should be recognized as positive law. In the vast majority of such cases, a representative body is the most appropriate authority to weigh such a claim, either by enacting a new statute or initiating an amendment to the Constitution. If a given polity is divided on the claim, neither side is likely to obtain the entirety of what it is seeking. But such outcomes are in the very nature of democracy, in which compromise enables some measure of conciliation in the midst of disagreement.

Read the entire article here.