The abortion rights case called Roe v Wade used privacy as the argument for abortion rights. This right to privacy has been a staple in arguments against sodomy laws and for early homosexual rights.
Privacy was an attractive concept to use in the early 1970’s. Justice Blackmun liked his doctor friends and thought they should decide about abortions.
Justice Ginsburg has criticized the Roe decision that relied on privacy because it said nothing about a woman’s right to manage the timing of her children that she may have a life and career opportunities equal to that of a man. Equal rights, not privacy should have been used she believes.
In gay marriage privacy has been replaced with the equal opportunity argument. The more the equal opportunity argument has been used, the stronger the case for gay marriage has become.
The equal opportunity argument is beginning to be used in abortion rights. It cannot replace privacy too soon.
Anti abortion zealots have been successful in adding ridiculous costs and requirements making abortion more expensive and less available. These raise equal opportunity issues.
If Roe was overturned and law enforcement was given the responsibility to monitor all pregnant women to seen that their fetuses were adequately cared for inside women’s bodies, many women’s opportunities for work would be sacrificed. They would be even more at a disadvantage competing with men than they are now.
Use of the equal opportunity argument could become anti abortion zealots worst enemy.
[A link to this legal argument can be found in comments.]