Two hundred and forty years down the line, we’ve begun to trade our inalienable rights for invented ones.

We all know that the Left is after our liberty, and last week’s Supreme Court decision on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt displayed this in spectacular fashion. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s usual swing vote, joined the four liberal justices to hand down a 5-3 decision in favor of striking down several 2013 Texas regulations governing abortion clinics in the state.

Texas’s regulations were imposed in the wake of the horrific case of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who received multiple life sentences for numerous crimes–including the involuntary manslaughter of a women who received an abortion at his Philadelphia-based abortion practice. These regulations were designed to protect women by raising the medical standards of such clinics.

Regardless of Texas’s intent, the opinion penned by Justice Stephen Breyer relied on the ruling from 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, stating that the law would place “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion.”

The Left was giddy over what the New York Times deemed a “major victory” for abortion rights.  Yet, one must ask if the New York Times is mistaken to call this a “right” at all.

Justice Clarence Thomas remarked in his dissenting opinion that “the Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution.” It is clear that the liberals on the Court are doing legal gymnastics to protect the Left’s sacrament of abortion.

This decision, though it will likely render similar laws in 23 other states unconstitutional, will affect far more than the nation’s abortion laws. This case will be truly troublesome for the precedent it sets in American jurisprudence as a whole. Justice Thomas lamented that “the majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is ‘a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where “law,” properly speaking, has any further application.’”

In other words, the “law” as it is now being practiced can mean whatever you want it to mean–as long you have the special exceptions and special rights issues to support your case.

This flips John Adams’ famous American ideal right on its head: America is no longer a government of laws, but instead a government of men.