Every single time someone argues for restriction of freedoms, that person is wrong.

That brings to mind a highly quoted excerpt from Alito's draft (page 32) that reads:

These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's “concept of existence” prove too much. [...] Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. [...] None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.

He's so close in identifying this whole group of behaviors as fundamental rights that shouldn't be under the control of Congress or the Executive. And yet he lands 180-degrees opposite as he tries to make the case against the right to an abortion.

And then he has the gall, blinded by his own ideology probably, but still the gall to (naively?) lie about drug use and prostitution not having a claim to being deeply rooted in history. It's called the world's oldest profession for fuck's sake! And it's not disputed that people have been altering their minds with plants and fungi since before recorded history.

It was an assumed natural right until despotic governments came around to tell people they were forbidden to consume certain arbitrary substances while some other arbitrary substances were still ok to consume. And people used plants for abortions too... well before codified law.

Alito, instead of wearing the blindfold of justice, clearly wears an ideological blindfold and it's gotten him completely turned around. That's not a catastrophe, there are nine Supreme Court Justices for a reason, but it may be that four more of them agree with this stance.