Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion it falls on those who see it as a constitutional right to show their work. Especially since abortion has historically been illegal especially after the baby's first movement.
So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy?
That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.
Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.
It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years.
A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion:
https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...
Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy.
> Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution.
The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.
Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.
The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.