Activist justices wrongly established the so-called right to have an abortion outside the framework of the Constitution as per the following explanation.
Note that neither of the words “privacy” or “abortion” are constitutional terms. But as I indicated in my previous post, the states would have to amend the Constitution to expressly protect both privacy and abortion, imo, in order for the Supremes to be able to apply such enumerated rights to the states via the 14th Amendment.
But with all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the differences between legislative and judicial powers, the activist justices who decided Roe v. Wade got a free pass to do the following. They were able to pull the wool over the eyes of clueless state lawmakers and citizens by wrongly politically “amending” the so-called Democrat-favoring, vote-winning “rights” to privacy and abortion to the Constitution from the bench.
"Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause."