Are you convinced by the legal logic of the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut? Though the Constitution does not explicitly mention a "right to privacy," do you concur with Justice Douglas that a combination of other explicit rights add up to create such a right to privacy? If so, which rights in which Amendments might combine to do so? Or, are you more convinced by the dissenters, such as Justice Goldberg, who sees no basis to cobble together explicit rights to infer another, or Justice Hugo Black, who wrote that even though the Connecticut ban was "uncommonly silly," it was not unconstitutional? What does the majority opinion in Dobbs suggest about Griswold?