The problem I have with this is that the court clearly never intended there to be an actual right to privacy, or else things like recreational drugs and prostitution would be legal, and mass data collection and tracking by the government would not. So really it seems like the right to "privacy" was contrived as a way to conjure a constitutional right to abortion, but never actually applied in all the ways we actually think of as privacy.
Interracial marriage bans are clearly ruled out by equal protection, so that really isn't a concern.
> Interracial marriage bans are clearly ruled out by equal protection, so that really isn't a concern.
It actually is, though indirectly; a key point of the logic underlying those bans is finding an unenumerated right to marriage as a fundamental right which cannot be unequally treated under the EPC, just as Roe relies on the unenumerated fundamental right to privacy which cannot be deprived without due process under the Due Process Clause.
(And it is even moreso when you stop pretending that a particular Supreme Court actually strictly applies the rules it articulates rather than acting politically, in the face of ample evidence to the contrary.)
> So really it seems like the right to "privacy" was contrived as a way to conjure a constitutional right to abortion,
This works, if you have no knowledge of the Supreme Court’s privacy cases going back ~80 years before any application to abortion. One might argue that the Roe was politically motivated, of course, but you can't credibly argue that the authors of all the cases pre-Roe on privacy were doing it just as part of a conspiracy focussed on abortion.
Interracial marriage bans are clearly ruled out by equal protection, so that really isn't a concern.