; (13) Today’s decision, taken on its own, is catastrophic enough. As a matter of constitutional method, the majority’s commitment to replicate in 2022 every view about the meaning of liberty held in 1868 has precious little to recommend it. Our law in this constitutional sphere, as in most, has for decades upon decades proceeded differently. It has considered fundamental constitutional principles, the whole course of the Nation’s history and traditions, and the step-by-step evolution of the Court’s precedents. It is disciplined but not static. It relies on accumulated judgments, not just the sentiments of one long-ago generation of men (who themselves believed, and drafted the Constitution to reflect, that the world progresses). And by doing so, it includes those excluded from that olden conversation, rather than perpetuating its bounds ; (14) The legitimacy of the Court is earned over time … it can be destroyed much more quickly ; (15) The American public … should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread—that a new majority, adhering to a new doctrinal school , could by dint of numbers alone expunge their rights … It is hard—no, it is impossible—to conclude that anything else has happened here ; and (16) With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent ; Whereas the Supreme Court’s holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization places other fundamental human rights, such as the right to contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage at risk