[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would be fascinating to see the right wing judges try to handle such a case. To overturn such a law, and obviously they'd like to overturn such a law, they'd have to agree with the Griswold and Roe line of cases, it seems.

It comes awfully close to a hypothetical my constitutional law professor posed to us in law school. Is there a right to life under the US constitution, such that in the event Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, would Scalia and others ever try to argue that a state could not allow abortions? Of course no such right can be found in the originalist jurisprudence that Scalia supports, but he's let his own morals interfere with his judicial philosophy before (marijuana legalization as an exception to new federalism, for example). As interesting as it would be, pretty safe to assume we'll never get the chance to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silliness aside (silliness = when I said I could hear Scalia's hypothetical objections), I certainly can't read Justice Scalia's mind; but I honestly assume he would have no objections to such child-limiting laws. As you said, invalidating such laws (I think, anyway) implies at least a tacit concession that Griswold was decided correctly (and we can probably extend such a concession to Roe) – and would have much broader implications regarding textualists and privacy.