Oh, and as an aside, I heard a lawyer at court today talking. He's an extreme fundamentalist Christian. He indicated that there is a right-wing push to seek to make contraceptives illegal. Anyone know about this, or was he spouting his own extreme beliefs as if they were an actual party issue?
I think there are some religious conservatives (and maybe some secular conservatives) that don't realize how vanishingly few people, even in politically and socially conservative circles, share their particular views of certain issues. As an example, I've encountered people who seem to think re-establishing teacher-led prayer in public school classrooms is still high up on the conservative Republican agenda. Not because they're afraid it's true - they're in favor of it. I'm guessing your man there is one of those types.
The only people that would even want to do that are fundie Catholics, and an even smaller fringe of fundie Protestant/evangelicals. I've heard that anti-birth-control doctrine used to be a common teaching across most Christian denominations, but it certainly has not been for some time (in the U.S.). Even if U.S. Christians return to that position, it would be a huge leap to assume they'd want a legal ban.
I'm a bit concerned IF the leaked ruling is legit and ends up as the majority holding. My concern is that the opinion seems to attack the 1963 Giddeon decision which created the "privacy" basis upon which the Roe ruling was based. If they indicate that there is no Constitional right to privacy in one's own home, what impact will this have on the expectations of privacy with respect to 4th Amendment search and seizure. Much of the law on the 4th Amendment is based upon a person's expectations of privacy from the State in their own home. If SCOTUS holds that there is no "privacy" rights in COTUS, how might 4A be impacted?
Does it really seem reasonable to believe the 4th amendment, which has been with us for over two hundred years, is a dead letter, unless women can get abortions? For most of that time, abortion was illegal under at least some states' laws. Doesn't it seem really bizarre to suggest that the Bill of Rights offers us no protection from intrusive law enforcement practices, unless it also protects a controversial medical procedure?
Pretty sure someone's trying to smuggle in some pro-abortion propaganda on you.