[aruanan]

I suggest you're falling into the common (liberal) trap of assuming any law of which you disapprove should be considered unconstitutional. Which provision of the Constitution would such a law violate?

Without commenting on the merits of the case you're referring to, I suggest you're falling into the common assumption that unconstitutionality refers only to laws that come into conflict with some "provision" of the Constitution. In that, you're proving correct the opponents of the Bill of Rights who feared that some would start to believe that only those things found in the Bill of Rights would be considered protected rights rather than merely enumerated rights of a larger set of unwritten unalienable rights.

[Sherman Logan]

The US Constitution, at least till the passage of the 14th amendment, and arguably thereafter, applies to federal law only. It was not (at least originally) intended to provide much restriction on state laws that did not affect interstate concerns.

I would agree that a federal law of this type would be unconstitutional, but this is a TX state law. It violates no specific provision of the US constitution. I have no knowledge of the TX constitution.

BTW, using your interpretation the justices wouldn’t have had to find “penumbras and emanations” to decide the Constitution provides a right to abortion. They would have just had to state such a right was one of the unwritten unalienable rights protected by the Constitution.

Do you really want the courts given this additional method for finding whatever they want in the Constitution? Why not “rights” to health care, a living wage, shelter, food, cable TV, etc.?