Story highlights Kayleigh McEnany: Over time, SCOTUS has affirmed individual rights on both abortion and guns

Constitutional implications of "right to choose" worth considering alongside "right to bear arms," she says

Kayleigh McEnany is a CNN commentator and supporter of Donald Trump. She graduated from Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor. She received her B.S. in International Politics from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and studied politics at Oxford University. The views expressed in this commentary are her own.

(CNN) As many applaud the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt to roll back state abortion restrictions, perhaps they should consider how the high court could likewise roll back state gun restrictions using a similar rationale.

Kayleigh McEnany

It's a broad analogy, but an important one. In 1973 in Roe v. Wade, the c ourt decided that the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment included a woman's right to have an abortion. Similarly, decades later in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago , the high court decided that the Second Amendment right to bear arms included an individual's right to own a gun.

Taken together, whatever you may think about the accuracy of these rulings, Roe and Heller-McDonald cement the individual's right both to have an abortion and own a gun. For both of these fundamental rights the court will scrutinize and oftentimes strike down any state regulation that burdens them. It is worth considering whether those applauding the court for upholding the right to choose would do so tomorrow if the constitutional right at stake was the right to own a gun.

The Supreme Court decided yesterday in the Whole Woman's Health case that two provisions in a Texas state law unduly burdened a woman's choice to have an abortion. The first required that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a hospital within a 30-mile radius, while the second made abortion centers subject to the same health codes as surgical centers, where doctors perform procedures not requiring an inpatient hospital stay.

In analyzing these requirements, the court asked whether they placed an "undue burden" on the woman's right to have an abortion -- a standard derived from the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey . Casey reads in part: "Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right." This is not to say all limitations on abortion are unconstitutional. Indeed, Casey itself upheld the states' right to require informed consent, parental consent, and a 24-hour waiting period, among others.

Read More