You clearly don't understand what "fundamental" rights are. That is fair, since the progressives have largely undermined most people's understanding of "fundamental rights". So, let me help you.
First, there are "unalienable rights" granted by the Creator. Our Founding Fathers believed that not even governments have the right to deny these rights without losing their legitimacy.
Second, there are "Constitutional" rights like the Bill of Rights and those provided in the subsequent Constitutional amendments like the 14th Amendment.
Third, their are derivative or contractual rights established under law. Many of the "anti-discrimination" laws fit under this category as do things like "collective bargaining rights" and contractual rights like those incorporated into many contracts.
The order of "priority" of rights are "unalienable rights" often categorized as "human rights" since they exist independent of any government granted rights. Next, comes Constitutional rights since they represent the "contract" between the people, the "states" and the Federal government. These rights are not subject to Congress overriding them and require a Constitutional change for them to change. Third, "legal" rights, since these rights cannnot violate the first two and are easily changed by the same "body" that established them in the first place or in other instances they can be overturned by another body of government.
Roe v Wade did not create "reproductive rights", go read the opinion, so you don't sound like "noise". It argued that conflicting rights needed to be balanced and "invented" the idea that a baby's right to have its human rights protected by the state did not occur until after the baby became a person. It then defined that point as when a baby becomes viable.
Please read the opinion and the dissenting opinion. Nothing has changed, since that opinion was issued other than the current court deciding that the original activist Supreme Court exceeded its authority by determining when "personhood" rights accrue to an unborn baby. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. The ramifications may be significant, but the legal argument of Roe v Wade remains intact other than when an unborn baby gets "personhood" rights.
No rights have changed because of the recent Supreme Court decision, though you seem to fail to understand that since you probably have never read either the original Roe v Wade decision or the recent one. Religion plays no role in establishing rights and never has. All the Supreme Court said was the decision with regard to balancing the rights of two parties should be made by a "legislative body" of elected representatives of the people and not an unelected body of judges.
Shame you can't grasp the nuances of rights and the law. So, debating with you further is probably a waste of time.
