It’s not a precedent, eh?
How do you then interpret the SCOTUS ^codified^ “theory” of privacy (that has now become stare decisis?) in the Roe v Wade decision?
You’re a turtle (or, Sgt Schultz) when it comes to the survival of the USA. You provide the lick-spittle dripping from the boots of the Black Pampers in Philadelphia.
Begone.
You make my point. In Roe the court took a theory and made it a legal precedent by using it as a basis for ruling. In Happerset v Minor simply acknowledged that there is such a theory, then specifically stated they didn't need to rule as to it's validity, because it was irrelevant to the facts.
As for you ugly characterization of anyone who points out the obvious flaws in your inept logic, it only reflects badly on you, not me.