Scott vs Sanford?
So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?
So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.
Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.
That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.
Let’s do a brief recap from Civics class: the judicial branch checks the powers of legislative lawmaking by analyzing Constitutional concerns of state and federal laws. Abortion laws were challenged, resulting in a decision where existing law was found to breach 14th and 9th amendment protections. The vote was 7-2. In this case the ‘democratic means’ you cite were found by SCOTUS to have gone too far. It’s in the decision, if you care to read it:This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
Roe was a carefully balanced decision as it did not invalidate all state abortion restrictions - only those which onerously violate a woman’s personal liberty and privacy.
Bonus civics question: if a practicing Christian or Catholic is against abortion, they don’t have to get one. Why would their belief apply to a neighbor who feels differently? This Texas law encourages people to take legal action under a similar premise. That doesn’t sound crazy to you?
Right, on Dred, the Chief Justice said: that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
That racist judge utilized the constitution to justify why Black people weren't citizens.
Why is it so hard for this be settled by an actual amendment to the constitution that mentions the actual practice of abortion, not some made up precedent that is based on judicial opinion just like Dred? There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment that states abortion is a privacy issue. That the left has promulgated that in order to avoid political scrutiny and debate by putting this to the voters is another subject, that's why is much simpler to have a few people in robes decide what's right or wrong according to their feelings on the constitution.
Very simple, have the constitution amended. That's the solution.
In the meantime, let the States decide, if California allows abortion till due date, so be it. If Alabama is not allowed at any time, so be it too. That's how it works and should work. Democracy is the method for which things are supposed to work, people holding their politicians accountable for their actions and laws.
Now similarly, why should I be forced to wear a mask? why should I be obligated to vaccinate? isn't that a privacy issue too? my body my choice?