Scalia Suggests Women Have No Right to Contraception

[Igel]

108. That makes little sense.

No generalized right to privacy?

Notice that Griswold didn't deal with public, it dealt with private, which meant "private from the government." Roe didn't say that I couldn't peek into my neighbor's bedroom--we have laws for that already. The Constitution deals with government: The government can't peek into my neighbor's bedroom.


If there's no generalized right to privacy then ...

Medical and tax records could be made available to the government. (Tax records are. I'm not sure about medical records--for Medicare/Medicaid they're not really. The ACA may change private-coverage records, I don't know.)

Unlisted phone numbers could be made available to the government. (They are. Just because something's not required by the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution prohibits it. We have a wide area of discretion called "permitted".)

Safe deposit boxes could be inventoried by law and their contents made available to government by law. (Still need court order for those.)

Cayman Island accounts could be regulated and made subject to IRS reporting requirements. (Which is what the US government has been pushing for for a long time; the problem isn't the courts or the Constitution, the problem is that the Caymans aren't subject to the US government or the courts. Income and its sources are not private from the government. Authority to tax and regulate trumps privacy.)

Your examples don't exactly knock me over. Sorry.