The 'law' of gravity, simplified, is a description of the relationship between the masses of particles/objects and is rightly classified as a component of physics / physical ontology. Rights, and normativity broadly, belongs to the category of metaphysical ontology - there is a relationship between the physical and metaphysical but this relationship needs to be properly explained in a way which is compatible with the generally agreed upon conventions, generally divided by the terms 'science' and 'non-science'

I dont know what you mean when you say that "we have a right to feel grounded." to me feeling grounded equates with an emotional sense of stability related to one's physical or social place in the world. I agree that this as an ideal way of being, but I struggle to see how we could use a non-primary emotion as the basis for any legal convention of rights in and of itself.

For me, I attempt to connect the metaphysics of ideas and feelings (things that exist dependently on a subjective mind) to the physics of the universe in which subjectivity arose. To do so, I use the concept of evolution, since what we are is a result of the specific evolutionary steps our species took to get to the present state of things.

Human beings are animals, in principle just like any other, the majority of us seeking food, water, thermal regulation, and shelter, and we also embody fight or flight tendencies and the tendency to recapitulate through sexual embodiment and activities like dating and pair bonding. From an evolutionary perspective you can tie survival tendencies to the physical and, in doing so, concepts related to survival are then bridged and can serve as the basis for normative conventions.

However, there is more than survival. We often seek to improve our existence and so there needs to be a secondary basis since normativity covers both the survival and improvement aspects of living.

I created a system, feel free to reach out if you are curious :)