It depends what is meant by “privacy”: it is an elastic law.
Surely, the 4th amendment establishes due process. Let us say a law against contraception is enacted. The 4th amendment will still not allow the cops to search for condoms in bedside drawers; but the prescribing, sale and advertising of contraception will be restricted or completely banned.
It is no different from the current laws against some recreational drugs, or against some pornography. The 4th amendment does not invalidate these laws. If the right to privacy as enshrined in the constitutional penumbras meant what Griswald decided, we would not have laws against cocaine, child pornography, or prostitution, all activities similarly private.
elastic law -> elastic WORD.
No. That's a job for the legislatures and courts empowered by the Constitution.
"The 4th amendment will still not allow the cops to search for condoms in bedside drawers"
It sure does allow it. The 4th even specifies the conditions required.
"...the prescribing, sale and advertising of contraception will be restricted or completely banned."
...can be. The right to privacy doesn't trump the power of the legislature to enact law. The right to privacy is only a consideration in police actions.
"The 4th amendment does not invalidate these laws."
That's right. " If the right to privacy as enshrined in the constitutional penumbras meant what Griswald decided, we would not have laws against cocaine, child pornography, or prostitution, all activities similarly private."
Since the concept is only a figmentary element of fantasy used as a con, only the con artist can determine what it applies to. They very well may apply it to these things depending on what purpose, or outcome they intend.