How Dobbs Remade the Rules

The reversal of Roe v. Wade was never just about abortion. That was the bait, the misdirection. The real consequence of Dobbs v. Jackson was a fundamental shift in power, one that redefined the relationship between the individual and the state. Stripped down to its legal core, this decision was not about protecting life or even returning authority to the states. It was about setting the precedent that bodily autonomy—once considered a fundamental right—was no longer protected. And once the state claims the right to control one aspect of personal autonomy, nothing prevents it from expanding that control further.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is already happening. The same legal logic that reversed Roe is being used to justify restrictions on contraception, medical privacy, sexual identity, and even travel between states. The common thread is the expansion of state power over personal decisions, justified by a legal doctrine that pretends to be neutral but is, in reality, deeply selective.

The modern conservative movement, particularly in its legal arguments, claims to be rooted in originalism—the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning. The problem is that this doctrine is wielded selectively. When it serves the goals of restricting rights, it is applied with rigid precision. But when it benefits the expansion of individual freedoms, it is ignored or rewritten.

The most glaring example of this double standard is the way the courts interpret the Second and Fifth Amendments. The Second Amendment, which explicitly references a "well-regulated militia," has been stretched beyond recognition to justify nearly unfettered gun ownership. It is interpreted broadly, expansively, in a way that maximizes individual power over the state. The Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination and guarantees due process, has been repeatedly restricted in ways that make it easier for the state to prosecute and imprison.

Take gun rights. The Supreme Court, in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms. This expansive interpretation disregards the explicit language about a "militia," choosing instead to treat gun ownership as an untouchable personal right. States that attempt to regulate firearms—whether through waiting periods, assault weapons bans, or permit requirements—find their efforts blocked by conservative judges who insist that the Constitution guarantees unfettered access to deadly weapons.

Contrast this with the way the Fifth Amendment is applied. Protections against self-incrimination, unlawful search and seizure, and due process have been eroded over the years, particularly for marginalized communities. The rise of mass surveillance, the ability of law enforcement to seize property without a conviction, and the ease with which prosecutors coerce plea deals all point to a narrowing interpretation of due process—one that favors the power of the state over the rights of the individual. If originalism were applied consistently, both amendments would be read in ways that maximized individual autonomy. Instead, one is stretched beyond recognition while the other is gutted.

This contradiction exposes the true goal: expanding power selectively. Rights that empower individuals against the government—like gun ownership—are interpreted broadly. Rights that protect individuals from state intrusion—like privacy and due process—are treated as negotiable. That is how we arrived at the reversal of Roe.

Dobbs did not happen in isolation. It was the culmination of a decades-long strategy to shift the balance of power back toward the state under the guise of constitutional purity. The argument that the Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion was never the real issue. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause had long been interpreted to protect personal decisions about marriage, contraception, and bodily autonomy. If the right to privacy was valid for interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia and for contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut, it should have applied equally to abortion. The reversal of Roe was not about the limits of the Constitution; it was about picking and choosing which rights the government would recognize.

This is why the broader implications of Dobbs cannot be ignored. If privacy is not protected, then neither is contraception. Neither is same-sex marriage. Neither is the ability to make medical decisions without state interference. Already, conservative justices have signaled their willingness to revisit decisions protecting birth control access and LGBTQ+ rights. The legal door has been kicked open, and states are testing the limits of their new authority.

The first wave of post-Dobbs laws has focused on criminalizing abortion and restricting access to reproductive healthcare. Some states have begun monitoring women who miscarry, investigating them for possible "self-induced" abortions. Louisiana has proposed classifying abortion as homicide, which would allow the state to prosecute women who seek the procedure—even if they do so legally in another state.

But the legal logic does not stop at pregnancy. If the state can force birth, it can also justify sterilization. It has happened before. The Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell (1927), upheld forced sterilization laws for those deemed "unfit" to reproduce. The ruling has never been overturned. And if states can claim an interest in preventing abortion, they can just as easily claim an interest in preventing certain people from having children at all.

This is not hypothetical. Several judges have already suggested sterilization as a condition of reduced sentences for men convicted of certain crimes. The precedent exists. The logic has been used before. And now, thanks to Dobbs, states have the legal backing to expand these policies.

The other looming issue is whether states can control travel. If a state believes abortion is equivalent to murder, what prevents it from criminalizing the act of leaving the state to obtain one? Missouri lawmakers have already introduced measures to allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion elsewhere. The idea that states can regulate not just what happens within their borders but also the actions of their citizens outside them is unprecedented in modern times.

This legal framework does not stop with women. The same reasoning could be applied to men’s reproductive rights. If states can regulate pregnancy, they can regulate other aspects of reproduction as well. Some conservative lawmakers have already suggested bans on vasectomies and other forms of male contraception.

The broader picture is clear: the state is expanding its power to control personal autonomy, and it is doing so by selectively applying constitutional interpretation in ways that justify oppression rather than freedom.

There is a reason for this. It is easier to rule through control than through inspiration. It is easier to restrict rights than to uplift people. It is easier to impose morality than to build a society where individuals have true freedom to make their own choices. The government—particularly in conservative-led states—is moving toward a model where personal freedoms are granted only when they align with state interests.

The people cheering the downfall of Roe because it “returned power to the states” fail to see the long game. This is not about states' rights. It is about state control. And once the precedent is set that the government can dictate what happens inside a person’s body, that power will not be limited to pregnancy. It will be tested on contraception, on medical decisions, on gender identity, on end-of-life choices, on anything the state deems worthy of regulation.

This is not about protecting life. It never was. It is about deciding who controls life, and who has the right to make decisions about their own existence. And the answer that Dobbs has given us is that the state, not the individual, holds that power. The question now is: how much further will they go?