Overturning Roe v. Wade is against the core values in at least these specific ways:

1. Due process / legal certainty

• It removed a long-established constitutional framework for the right to abortion, replacing it with a patchwork of state rules.
• That undermines predictability and procedural fairness about a fundamental, time-sensitive liberty interest.

2. Privacy / bodily autonomy as an enforceable constraint

• The decision narrowed or rejected the Court’s previous constitutional protection for privacy in making intimate decisions.
• For people seeking abortion, that means the state (and private actors via enforcement mechanisms) can intervene more directly in deeply personal medical choices.

3. Protection from coercion

• When abortion access is restricted or criminalized, people face legal risk in order to control their own reproductive choices.
• That is coercion by threat of prosecution and related penalties, especially in situations where time and access constraints are already severe.

4. Rights-first limits on powerful institutions

• Roe had acted as a judicial constraint on state action regarding abortion.
• Overturning it shifts the balance away from courts enforcing a strong constitutional floor and toward legislatures/regulators setting variable and often punitive rules.

5. Third-party and “outsourced harm” effects

• State-level bans often operate through enforcement against providers and/or via mechanisms that create chilling effects.
• This can outsource coercive power to institutions and individuals (clinics, clinicians, insurers, employers), rather than keeping the issue within a rights-and-procedure framework.

6. Non-domination / vulnerability

• If the practical ability to exercise the right depends on geography, money, transportation, and time, then restricting abortion tends to dominate the most vulnerable groups most severely.
• That conflicts with an anti-domination approach that aims to secure baseline liberties for everyone, not just the privileged.

Limitarian Constitutional Liberalism (LCL)

Note : this isn't entirely complete, going into the specifics of implementing them is a much deeper rabbit hole. Changing to a better voting system is a good starting point however.

1) Strong rights enforcement is central

• Courts and independent oversight matter a lot.
• Due process, privacy, free speech, and protection from coercion get treated as enforceable constraints on both individuals and powerful institutions.

2) Limits on wealth and power become constitutional

• Extreme accumulation is capped or bounded by law (directly through taxes/limits, or indirectly through enforceable anti-concentration rules).
• “Power” is not only economic. It likely includes political influence and control over essential infrastructure.

3) Small state, but not a weak state

• The state is lean in what it provides.
• It is “strong” where it must be: enforcement, adjudication, regulator independence, and anti-abuse rules.

4) Competition is protected, but not worshipped

• Market freedom is respected, but monopolistic capture and exploitation get blocked through antitrust, liability, licensing standards, and disclosure rules.
• The goal is that freedom for individuals does not require freedom for predation.

5) “Markets + rights” replaces “markets only”

• Private contracts are respected, but not when they function as coercion or impose rights-violating harms (for example, involuntary constraints, unsafe externalities, or de facto monopoly power).
• Tort law and regulatory standards are used to prevent “outsourcing harm.”

6) A coherent stance on safety nets

• Likely favors baseline protections (so people can meaningfully exercise rights), but tries to keep programs targeted and rule-based rather than sprawling.
• The justification is rights and non-domination, not broad economic management.

7) Corporate actors are treated as constrained agents

• Corporations are allowed to operate, but their ability to extract wealth without corresponding duties is limited.
• Think: strong liability, transparency, enforcement against illegal harms, and limits on political capture.

8) Political legitimacy depends on reducing extreme influence

• Because extreme wealth can buy disproportionate power, the limitarian component pushes toward guardrails for funding, lobbying, and ownership of essential platforms.

9) Policy tradeoffs are explicit

• You accept the trade: less tolerance for extreme concentration in exchange for broader rights security and reduced domination.
• Economic dynamism is preserved, but with “pressure valves” against runaway power.