Roe v Wade wasn't the S.C.'s first rodeo regarding the RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
I never even implied that it was, so you are arguing with yourself.
I KNEW YOU WOULD come back with, "There's no explicit, printed, or implied RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution."
Again, I never even implied that. You can't even begin to refute any of my arguments, so you cook up doubtful claims, falsely attribute them to me, and then present evidence against your own concoctions.
Of course there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, as the Court plainly acknowledged in Roe: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973). But the very next sentence notes that "In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution." It is fair to note that more than one Supreme Court justice has doubted that any such right exists.
The line of decisions mentioned in Roe includes some of the cases in the laundry list your Wikilaw "research" turned up. You might have included Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 decision about a state law that required habitual criminals to be sterilized. Skinner extended the privacy right to include decisions about procreation, and in that sense it anticipated Griswold and Roe. You might also have included Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a 1925 Supreme Court decision that held decisions about rearing and educating children were part of an implied constitutional right to privacy.
The Roe decision also discusses the various parts of the Constitution the Court had identified as the source of this implied right, and the cases in which each part was identified. It also said that "these decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy." The Roe majority then proceeded, without ever bothering to apply the standard the Court has developed to determine whether a right is fundamental, to declare that abortion was a fundamental right.
But as Justice Scalia observed in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court has dropped the claim it made in Roe that abortion is a fundamental right. "We have since rejected Roe's holding that regulations of abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, see Planned Parenthood v. Casey . . . and thus, by logical implication, Roe's holding that the right to abort an unborn child is a 'fundamental right.' See 505 U.S., at 843-912 (joint opinion of O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ.) (not once describing abortion as a 'fundamental right' or a 'fundamental liberty interest')." 539 U.S. 554, 595 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
According to what the Court said in Roe, then, apparently the right to abortion, not being fundamental, is not "included in this guarantee of personal privacy." Or should only the parts of Roe you happen to like apply?
Additionally, the government cannot deny women's right to LIBERTY without due process of law. In other words, when women break no laws, they can't be denied the right to liberty
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to persons without regard to their sex. To understand what the "liberty" in that clause was intended to include, read Justice Thomas' brilliant discussion of that subject in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell. He traces the historical meaning of that concept all the way back to Magna Charta, where the concept of due process in our law has its roots.
Read that history, as Justice Thomas details it, and it will become very clear the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause was never meant to protect a right to abortion, to homosexual marriage, or to any other "right du jour" a handful of lawyers on the Supreme Court felt like cooking up that year. The "liberty" meant the same in 1868 as it had in 1791, and the same as it always had meant before that: Freedom from being physically restrained by agents of government without some legitimate reason and fair opportunity to challenge that reason in a hearing.
Nowhere in the Constitution forbids a woman from having an abortion.
So what? Nowhere does the Constitution forbid anyone to commit murder, either, but that doesn't mean there is a constitutional right to murder that states violate by making laws against it.
