Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others retained by the people."
I would say it was the our founders "intent" that the right to privacy is a right "retained by the people."
The author of the article reveals by his remarks that he has not read Roe v Wade.
The "right to privacy" was formerly acknowledged first in Griswold v Connecticutt in 1963.
In the Roe v Wade decision of 1972 the Supreme Court correctly reaffirmed the right to privacy.
In the same case, the Supreme Court incorrectly did not apply the right to privacy to a fetus until after the "first trimester."
As a staunch strict constructionist of the constitution and a vehement anti-abortionist, I applaud my right to privacy as being acknowledged legally, but wretch in disgust that an embryo, which can only be a human, does not have the same rights "retained by the people" who exist out of the womb.
Memo to Christians: The "right to privacy" does not equal "a right to abortion," only.
You will rue the day when your "right to privacy" is violated by your government when it applies directly to you and the right to privacy does not involve abortion.
Unfortunately, you then will have no ground to stand on to defend that right to privacy constitutionally because for so many years you incorrectly "denied and disparaged" that right "retained by the people" as being only an "abortion right."
Do you want an example?
When the "over population" wackos, sometime in the future, convince a majority of citizens that only certain couples can have children and those designated couples can only a certain number of children. (Sounds like Nazi Germany in the past and China in the present, n'cest pas?)
Do you not think that the "right to privacy" that is "retained by the people" is the right to have the number of children that you and your spouse wish to have versus how few or many children your government says you should have?
How do you translate the "right to privacy" into the "right to murder"?