I've got a question, quoting Ruthie Baby, " Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, “are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.” 505 U. S., at 897. Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Id., at 856. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to “their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature. See, e.g., Siegel, Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions ofEqual Protection, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 261 (1992); Law, Rethinking Sex and the Constitution,132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 955, 1002-1028 (1984)."
I've read the incoherent mess that is Casey several times. How many Justices actually signed on to this particular "finding"?
I am not aware that the Constitution under a powers clause has established this branch of government to find and articulate these kinds of national goals. Who could disagree with the language in the abstract? But dicta is not the same thing as a constitutional amendment even though, no doubt, Justice Ginsburg holds this language to be more important than the second amendment.
