I found it telling that in one of Alito's answers, he couched his following and reliance on stare decisis with, to paraphrase, the idea that you don't KNOW what new arguments will be made in support of a matter before the Court.
I find it telling that Democrats are all over the idea that stare decisis must be followed, and yet they never remember the most glaring injustice of it: Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court had to say in essence in Brown (1954) that Plessy was wrong, flat wrong, and they were not obliged to use Plessy as precedent.
I'm of the mind that while the 4th Amendment guarantees us privacy in our persons and homes via the reasonable search provision, I cannot fathom how the Constitution protects the right to abortion. Plus the fact that the country is now turning away from this "unrestricted abortion" notion being pushed by the hard liberals. Even in San Francisco, there is a serious ad campaign on BART Trains stating that we have gone too far in allowing abortion. And even the Birkenstock Berkeley Beanheads haven't defaced the signs (which is saying something),
For one thing, Amendment 9. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
I have no problem with a right to privacy, but abortion is not an issue of privacy. If you accept that a fetus is not 'alive', then it's very simple. I can't remember where I heard it but someone once said (paraphrasing) "If a fetus is not alive, no justification is necessary. If a fetus IS alive, no justification is possible." In fact, a mother is not merely making the choice whether to have an abortion or not, she is choosing when life (metaphysically speaking) begins. An question of this importance simply should not be left to individual choice.