Alito wrote, “Until the latter part of the 20th Century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None.” But reading that statement inversely, in the latter part of the 20th Century, there was support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Both statements are true, yet Alito give all weight to the former and none to the latter.

Alito cannot see the irony that he is denying the precedent of fifty years of support for the right to an abortion by inventing a new precedent and giving his new, latter precedent more weight than the former. He is determining that Americans do not have a constitutional right to an abortion because between 1788 and 1973 Americans did not have that established right.

How is it possible that now, after fifty years of enjoying that established right found in the Constitution by the Supreme Court itself, he can deny that right exists because it wasn’t found in the Constitution before 1973?

This is conservative judicial activism in the extreme. It has become cliché that there are numerous unenumerated rights. Privacy being obvious. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," may not specifically enumerate the word "privacy" but it is the most elegant definition of privacy rights I have ever read.