Roe v. Wade ruled that women have a right to get an abortion because of an (unenumerated) right to privacy. The draft opinion argues that there is no such right. If there is no right to privacy, then there is no constitutional basis to oppose criminalization of encryption.
The Dobbs draft does not argue against the right of privacy. In fact, it reaffirms several rulings where this is applied. The difference is that none of those conflicted with what Roe v. Wade called "potential life." Alito's argument is that the way Roe v. Wade establishes this balance is inherently legislative, which represents a major abuse of court power, and Alito wants this power to the restored to the states.
This “privacy” was clearly a made up argument. It doesn’t apply in any other case (e.g. “selling your kidney” is also privacy without interference of the state yet nevertheless illegal).
You can easily overturn Roe while leaving all other rights in place.
Of course you can, the law doesn't have to be simple, carve outs are perfectly okay, if that is what the people (seem to) want.
That said there is the very simple argument that selling your kidney should be allowed. And if we are worried about someone exploiting others by forcing them to sell their kidneys then we can regulate the commerce part (set minimum price, blind donors to recipients), just as the medical market is regulated. (And in general if oppression/exploitation is a concern then the law should address that - provide a social safety net so people don't have to even think about to sell their kidney for money, instead of regulating the symptom.)
Read the opinion for Roe. It wasn’t privacy exactly. Rather, the court wasn’t actually sure it was freedom/autonomy or privacy. Both the 9th and 14th amendments are argued. The 10th is not mentioned, which if we steelman the argument, must be.
A bit of a nitpick, but the reason Roe has been considered to have “shakey limbs” (see Ginsberg’s comments on the case) is the court was ambiguous on why it was decided as it was.
