[P-Marlowe]

This whole argument is why despite being ‘pro life” I have never wanted argue (like many) that there was anything wrong with the “logic” used in Roe v Wade, that we possess an unalienable right to privacy. We DO in fact possess that unalienable right, and we possess other rights too.

Actually there is a lot that is wrong with the logic used in Roe v. Wade, but inasmuch as they relied on the principle of Liberty as enunciated in Griswold, they were correct that there is a right to privacy, but they took it (for no logical reason whatsoever) to include some kind of fundamental right to abort our posterity. That was never a fundamental right to abortion before 1973 and it was, in fact, a crime in all states at the time the Constitution was enacted.

Griswold was simply distorted to make a traditional crime or moral turpitude into a fundamental Constitutional right by the Roe Court. Roe still needs to be overturned, but Griswold needs to be affirmed.

[The Pack Knight]

I'm still turning it over in my head, but I think you have something here.

The Administration's lawyers will no doubt argue that a lot of what you've quoted here is dicta. However, from what I've seen, the Justices tend to have a much narrower view of what constitutes dicta than the average lawyer.

You know, even with "community rating" and "guaranteed issue", I don't see how anyone can get insurance without submitting to a medical exam or at least answering a questionnaire about private medical facts. Being compelled to do either clearly violates the right to privacy as defined by Griswold.

[Weirdad]

I did not appreciate that Griswold was actually used (and distorted) in the Roe decision (thanks) — guess I should have recognized that from your post.

I was always leery of advocating that Roe be overturned in a manner that would be used to later overturn decisions like Griswold (as you describe above). In other words, I never wanted to argue “no sir, there’s NOT a right to privacy, so Roe has to be overturned” because that kind of thinking could later could be used against other liberties. To me the focus should be on the rights of the unborn baby, correct, and much more in line with defending our rights.

Could you summarize the Griswold case or link to an appropriate summary? (Guess I could look it up but I am not a lawyer and looks like you could do it properly in two seconds.)