Duh. But does this say privacy IS a right? No, it does not. It simply says that privacy MAY BE a right; and that an infinite number of other things MAY BE rights too. That says nothing. An infinite number of rights is legally and intellectually absurd. Ergo, we are right back where we started from. It's not in the Constitution.
You still need a positive legal authority for claiming a specific privacy right. What is your authority for this? We already know it is not enumerated in the Constitution, just as Sir Francis asserted.
You still need a positive legal authority for claiming a specific privacy right. What is your authority for this? We already know it is not enumerated in the Constitution, just as Sir Francis asserted.
You've got it backwards - the state needs a compelling reason to insert itself, or the right is retained by a citizen (and once again, lack of enumeration in the Constitution is explictly not an indication that something is not a right).
What is the state's compelling interest in inserting itself in family decisions about legitimate, established courses of medical treatment?