This is not true, the 4a never gave you unrestricted right to privacy. As a simple example: the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving.
I am all for reasonable abortion access but Roe was a disastrously bad ruling in many ways.
The right to privacy as it pertains to Roe v Wade and many other precedents primarily stems from the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process, not the 4th amendment's freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
>the 4a will not get you out of a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving
it doesn't? AFAIK you can refuse such a test, they really can't force it on you. of course if you do there will be consequences, but if you don't want the government to know your blood alcohol level you absolutely can. most probably you will be sentenced for driving under the influence, but that would be just a sentence and not actual provable data about you.
As a matter of fact, the 4th absolutely protects you from having to take a breathalyzer when pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. You are not required to comply, and to compel you requires a warrant signed by a judge, as per the 4th. There can be no criminal sanction, but in many states, the state may revoke the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on state maintained roadways, or in other words, suspend a drivers license.
Correct, the 4th amendment doesn't give you an unrestricted right to privacy, but the court argued that such a right existed through other precedent and Roe v Wade.
So by that argument: Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy? Because if you want to argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy then that's the route you get to go down. Alito is arguing that if it's not directly in the constitution it does not exist.
Frankly I'm not willing to accept any challenge to Roe v Wade because the people doing so aim to destroy abortion no matter how many other rights or precedent they have to trample over. If abortion is banned they will stop at nothing to destroy encryption and privacy in order to prosecute anyone that ever has an abortion, even across state lines.
> Do you agree that the government has the right to ban encryption and other details relating to privacy?
I think it would be very likely that a law passed by the legislative branch banning encryption would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't think there's much room for debate here.
Digital privacy and abortion are issues that must be handled in the legislative branch, not the judicial one.
I am all for reasonable abortion access but Roe was a disastrously bad ruling in many ways.