Sigh, not this. The bill of rights explicitly says that there are other rights not enumerated in the constitution that exist and (presumably) need to be enforced. The whole idea of Strict Construction flies right in the face of the obvious text of the ninth amendment.
Really, why is the ninth amendment even there if it's supposed to be ignored?
No, they actually did exactly the opposite. They had to splice in a paragraph explaining how, despite all the logic in the piece seemingly being applicable to any such Strict Constructionalist argument, they really, really don't mean it and this is "only" about abortion, because... reasons, basically. It's like they put a pinkie swear into the opinion because they knew the ants nest they were stepping in.
What we actually saw was the end of stare decisis. Any excuse is good enough now. For almost three hundred years, the court only overruled itself in areas of overwhelming public consensus. Now? It's just politics, man.
Not really. Roe was one of a bunch of decisions of that era making findings of "civil rights". In particular, and libertarians like to forget this part, the core finding is actually based on the fourth amendment, and it says that no matter how firm it may believe the moral argument may be, the government doesn't have the right to decide for someone what medical procedures should be possible within her own body.
I genuinely don't understand all the HN libertarians lining up on the site of Government Power here. This is absolutely a libertarian issue. Is it just knee-jerk tribalism? Have you guys all decided you don't really care so much about individual rights? Or is it just that you don't have a uterus and are disinclined to align yourself with those who do?
Really, why is the ninth amendment even there if it's supposed to be ignored?