I have never quite understood what “privacy” means in the context of the debate about abortion. As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade Court did nothing more than say that a decision about abortion is a “private” decision — one that should be made by the prospective mother, barring exceptional circumstances. “Private”, in that sense, really means “autonomous” (a justification made with slightly more clarity by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
Perhaps as a result of Roe, “privacy” has in the past several decades become something of a fetish. The result is a stupendous stack of laws and regulations that purport to protect “privacy”.
What is it? And is there a right to it?
The desire for privacy can be thought of the desire to keep information about oneself from the eyes and ears of others, for various reasons:
One reason would be to avoid embarrassment.
Another reason would be to avoid being a victim of a criminal act (e.g., extortion, fraud, or theft).
A third reason, which has no legal support, would be to avoid being the target of a criminal prosecution. (An illegal act conducted in privacy — such as an unwitnessed murder — is still an illegal act.)
A fourth reason — and the one that now seems to be most prevalent — is simply a desire for privacy for its own sake.
Here’s my assessment of the reasons:
There is no natural or constitutional right to avoid embarrassment. It is an unavoidable and unpreventable consequence of being a social animal.
Regarding extortion, fraud, theft, etc., the operative word isn’t “privacy”, it’s “secrecy” in the defense of one’s reputation and property. Extortion, fraud, theft, etc., involve access to things like a victim’s medical history, court records, social security number, and passwords. Keeping such things secret is essential to the avoidance of extortion, etc. But such information can be kept secret without keeping it private; that is, such information (with the possible exception of passwords) is recorded by and accessible to official parties, who are only allowed to release such information under conditions that (presumably) preclude their use for criminal purposes.
What about passwords? You keep them secret (or you should) for the sake of security. (They are not mere foibles that might embarrass you.) But, even then, you will (if you are prudent) tell someone how to find them if you are incapacitated or die.
I have already dismissed the foolish idea that an act conducted in private is defensible under the rubric of privacy.
That leaves me with the question of whether there is a right to privacy for its own sake. Having disposed of embarrassment, the avoidance of victimhood, and criminality, is anything left to discuss? What might be considered private that doesn’t fit into one of those categories?
One’s thoughts and feelings. Why should they be kept “private”? Because their exposure might embarrass one, or lay one open to a criminal charge, or give away information that might lead to extortion, etc.? But, as I’ve already explained, none of that has anything to do with privacy.
In sum, the mythical right to privacy boils down to nothing more than self-restraint: Don’t blab about thoughts and feelings that you don’t want others to know. That’s not a right, it’s a simple piece of advice that’s honored mainly in the breach.
P.S. If there could be right to privacy for its own sake, why couldn’t there be a right to a Lamborghini, a villa on the Mediterranean, or eternal life for its own sake?