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.)