Unfortunately, that logic is faulty. The key issue in this case was that the right being denied (a parent’s right to live with and rear his own child) is fundamental. The law treats fundamental rights differently from non-fundamental rights. In order for the government to abridge or intrude on a fundamental right, the applicable law or governmental action must survive strict scrutiny. However, for non-fundamental rights, the bar is much lower. Such laws need only pass the rational basis test (the law must be “rationally related to a legitimate government interest”).

Individuals do not have a fundamental right to go to a park or a school they don’t attend. Fundamental rights are those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (such as the right to freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble) or deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions (such as the right to travel).