Reply #14: They may attack it on grounds having little to do with privacy.

[rug]

One premise for Roe is that the fetus is entitled to more protection as it becomes more viable independent from the mother, hence the increasing prohibitions from trimester to trimester.

They may take an ironic page from Brown and assert that increasing scientific knowledge has made the fetus viable much earlier in gestation and that viability conyeys rights on the fetus entitling it to protection much much earlier in the pregnancy. They could argue that life trumps privacy at that stage, leaving untouched the right to privacy itself.

Don't forget, Plessy was ultimately overturned because the court held that separate but equal was impossible, not wrong, and Scott v Sanford was never overturned but instead was replaced with a Constitutional Amendment after a civil war.