Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.
(0) Technically the amendment makes a statement about powers, so you have to consider "rights" to be the inverse of "government power" for this argument to make sense.
(1) technically the constitution does not give the supreme court the power of judicial review - it was carved out of whole cloth by the courts itself, which is exactly the situation that the constitution is supposed to prevent Congress from doing (not surprisingly it's largely failed at that too) so the American system currently has gaping hole(s) in its legitimacy that you must look aside to accept all of these premises.
Here's a consequence that should speak to tech-types: there are two arguments against mandatory NSA backdoors into encryption used by tech companies, 1) a fundamental right to privacy, and 2) these backdoors are intrinsically hackable.
The argument against #2 is "nuh-uh" and enough of our lawmakers are technically illiterate enough to believe that. #1 was based on judicial precedent that just went down the toilet.
This is factually untrue in the case of interracial marriage and deceptive in the case of gay marriage.
Loving v. Virginia, (which predates Roe) prohibiting bans on interracial marriage, was based on marriage as a fundamental right and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not privacy and substantive due process like Roe. A Roe-like substantive due process argument was raised in Loving but not resolved by the Court because the EPC argument was sufficient.
Obergefell v. Hodges, prohibiting same-sex marriage bans, had two independent bases, an EPC basis resting on Loving and a substantive due process bases resting on Roe and related cases. (In Obergefell the Court didn't choose not to resolve the substantive due process argument despite the EPC being sufficient, unlike Loving.)
In strictly reasoning-of-the-case terms, Roe (or even, as Justice Thomas has suggested, the line of substantive due process cases on which Roe relies) being struck down has no impact on Loving and no decisive impact on Obergefell.
The real reasons these and other cases are talked about as targets isn't legal reasoning, it is power politics: both the left and right see an activist Court that has proven multiple times recently that it is willing to ignore settled precedent to write right-wing preferences into law, and one side is afraid of that and one side wants to maximize the benefit they can extract from that situation while it lasts.
Interracial marriage bans are clearly ruled out by equal protection, so that really isn't a concern.
It actually is, though indirectly; a key point of the logic underlying those bans is finding an unenumerated right to marriage as a fundamental right which cannot be unequally treated under the EPC, just as Roe relies on the unenumerated fundamental right to privacy which cannot be deprived without due process under the Due Process Clause.
(And it is even moreso when you stop pretending that a particular Supreme Court actually strictly applies the rules it articulates rather than acting politically, in the face of ample evidence to the contrary.)
> So really it seems like the right to "privacy" was contrived as a way to conjure a constitutional right to abortion,
This works, if you have no knowledge of the Supreme Court’s privacy cases going back ~80 years before any application to abortion. One might argue that the Roe was politically motivated, of course, but you can't credibly argue that the authors of all the cases pre-Roe on privacy were doing it just as part of a conspiracy focussed on abortion.
Additionally, in the Texas case you can't sue the mother, only those who aid in performing the abortion.
Why the hell does my neighbor get to care if a specific doctor performed an abortion? Why can they launch a civil case against and be compensated financially for something that doesn't affect them in any way?
I disagree, this is an example of why data collection can be scary.
Data that was perfectly inane yesterday can be used against people tomorrow. How much data do the powers-that-be have access to that can be used similarly in the future? The dystopian view is that they'll be able to paint any narrative if you fall in their crosshairs. Of course who "they" are is subject to change.
Now, really, ponder on that.
Your instagram/Facebook likes alone reveal your gender, sexuality, relationship status and more. Add in a touch of PII to narrow it down to a single person.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...
https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-u...
Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child?
I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.
They're probably the most anti-American media outlet in existence and I wouldn't trust the words they print further than I can ball them up and throw them.
I guess if you believe everything the federal government tells you, and you believe the federal government is a benign hegemon, then you'd have a tough time classifying NPR's content as misinformation / un-American. I don't fall into that camp so many of NPR's claims are debatable and the fact that the only give one side a voice and push for a neoliberal agenda, makes them anti-American in my humble opinion.
But others (read lawyers) say it better.
"Tennessee law does not criminalize women who have abortions, but that does not mean they can't be prosecuted. In fact, the women could be charged with conspiracy or solicitation for seeking an abortion. And [Constitutional attorney David] Raybin said that with abortion being illegal, the father of a child could now sue a doctor or mother for performing the procedure."
And frankly, does it matter if the recipient of an abortion won't be prosecuted, if they can't legally be a recipient? See the case of the 10 year old who was recently evacuated from Ohio to get an abortion.
https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortion...
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-2015061...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail...
There are more examples. The point is that those who received an abortion have been prosecuted even prior to Roe being overturned. It stands to reason that they will be prosecuted now.
Not every state seems intent on charging women, but I think it’s hopelessly naive to believe that none will.
They found the dead child wrapped in a plastic bag, in a dumpster. The child was over the viability line for both weight and size.
Patel didn't report it. The Obgyn realized the STILL ATTACHED umbilical cord was too large and the baby was missing and called police to do a search.
What does this mean? There was a consensus on the Jury that sentenced her, but perhaps not on the internet forming opinions about it.
Even on the appeal where her charge was vacated, the consensus of the court was that the baby was alive when delivered. Just not that the law applied
The people who have worked for decades to overturn Roe believe in their hearts that abortion is murder. They aren’t going to be okay with “murder” being legal in other states, or “murder” tourism. The end result of all of this is a federal ban on abortion.