Agree with you on Roe, but decidedly not on Griswold. Nothing in the decision did or could enhance the Bill of Rights. I agree with one of the justices who claimed it was a “silly” decision. How can anyone at any time be assured of privacy? Do we not already have the “liberty” to TRY to preserve our individual privacy? But that’s the best we can do; a law doesn’t GIVE us that privacy any more surely than the law against murder keeps us from being murdered. Privacy, like safety which, some might argue, is a higher good than privacy and likewise unmentioned in the Constition, simpmly can’t be legislated. As a Catholic, my notions of the integrity of this decision are most definitely biased and confirm for me the path Pius X predicted: Divorce, Contraception, Abortion, Homosexuality, Euthanasia. Nearly all these natural-law violations are now lawful thanks at least in part to the inanity of Griswold.
But I’ve got to admit that I’d find it particularly delicious if Griswold happened to thwart Obamacare.
Where in the constitution does the Federal Government have the authority to take it away?
No, the Justice called the Law they overturned a "silly law".
I don't think you will find any Supreme Court Justice who has ever called another Justice's decision "silly". I just don't think that would happen.