Although the media focuses on Roe v. Wade as emblematic, the real threat, from a legal standpoint, may be to the underlying precedent, Griswold v. CT.
Griswold established that the Constitution expresses a right to privacy. The case, in particular, found that a Constitutional right to privacy protects a woman’s right to purchase and use birth control. (Well, this particular case only addressed a married woman’s right).
The right to privacy, however, is based on an interpretation of a number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution doesn’t expressly use the term, “Right to Privacy.” Many Americans (less so on Kos!) might be surprised that this is under threat.
The current threat, therefore, is much broader than just Roe and abortion rights. A whole series of legal precedent rests on the penumbra of rights which equate to a right to privacy. These privacy rights include the protection against legal prosecution of LGBT.
Therefore, in my view, it would be helpful for those fighting against this nomination refer to the threat to the right to privacy. It is important for those fighting agains this nomination become very familiar with Griswold. In many ways, this could be more critical than Roe.
Yes, they want to take away your birth control.