“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [ruling allowing contraception], Lawrence [fundamental right to personal privacy in one’s sex life], and Obergefell [ruling allowing gay marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ Ramos v. Louisiana, we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” writes Old Man Clarence in his concurrence with the Dobbs decision.