Roe is gone! :D

[Berzerker]

If a right is un-enumerated then it is none of scotus' business. How can it be incumbent upon the federal government to constrain the various states against infringing un-enumerated rights?

If bodily autonomy is top of a list of un-enumerated rights then Roe v Wade doesn't happen. It's literally not a federal case. How can rights be both guaranteed by federal constitution but not enumerated by it?

the 9th Amendment makes it the court's business
the doctrine of incorporation, ie the dual citizenship created by the civil war amendments, makes it necessary to constrain all legislatures
the Bill of Rights was not meant to be an encyclopedic listing of all our rights, hence the 9th Amendment
The Framers enumerated the few rights they considered most in danger, bodily autonomy is at the heart of those enumerated rights.
Free religion, speech, liberty, property etc are based on bodily autonomy. Your brain, your mouth, your freedom, your labor, your privacy, all these stem from it. As Rabbit said, its a given, they assumed it from the start. Thats why it took an amendment for a federal ban on booze.

[Geronimo]

the 9th Amendment makes it the court's business
the doctrine of incorporation, ie the dual citizenship created by the civil war amendments, makes it necessary to constrain all legislatures
the Bill of Rights was not meant to be an encyclopedic listing of all our rights, hence the 9th Amendment
The Framers enumerated the few rights they considered most in danger, bodily autonomy is at the heart of those enumerated rights.
Free religion, speech, liberty, property etc are based on bodily autonomy. Your brain, your mouth, your freedom, your labor, your privacy, all these stem from it. As Rabbit said, its a given, they assumed it from the start. Thats why it took an amendment for a federal ban on booze.

The 9th amendment has nothing to do. The weakness with it has always been that since it enumerates nothing it can't be violated.

Also if bodily autonomy was protected by it and the federal government compelled by it to block any state limitations on bodily autonomy by it, how did judicial review manage to protect all abortion on demand but place virtually no protections on consumptions of any drugs at all, not just booze? All drugs are considered subject to regulation regardless of consumer choice. The reason of course is that none of this is a result of constitutional law but rather of the values and priorities of the justices privileged to set precedent.