This is from the dissent in Dobbs.
The ability of women to participate equally” in the “life of the Nation” — in all its economic, social, political, and legal aspects — “has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” … Without the ability to decide whether and when to have children, women could not — in the way men took for granted — determine how they would live their lives, and how they would contribute to the society around them.
This is part of their argument against originalism. The idea is that women were not considered equal members of society (either at the ratification of the constitution or at the passage of the 14th amendment), so decisions affecting women from back then can’t be applied today — when women are equal members of society.
It’s an interesting point, although there is a counter-argument.
Do men really control their reproductive lives?
It’s clear that a man’s involvement in reproduction is not as intense or consequential as a woman’s. I don’t mean to pretend they are the same. They are clearly not. But does a man have any rights?
What if a man wants to have children, but his wife keeps having abortions? Does the man have any say in that? If not, what are his “reproductive rights”?
What if a man does not want to have more children, but his wife has an affair and gets pregnant. The husband is legally the parent of that child. Does he have any say in that? What are his “reproductive rights” in that case?