comment: >
  
  Scalia-conservative. That dude could rationalize harsh limits on abortion, but always carefully tread the line on privacy rights. He was very pro-4th Amendment. Because he knew he, and his conserva-buddies, had a lot of secrets to hide.
context: For context: South Carolina's Supreme Court has 5 Justices, all of whom were appointed by the Republican-controlled state legislature to 10-year terms. This decision was handed down by a 3-2 majority.
  The majority anticipated, and expressly addressed, the old, troll-ish argument that "the Constitution doesn't say the word abortion!11!1":
  
  We are not asked to determine whether our constitution mentions the word "abortion"—clearly it does not.  Instead, the fundamental question before the Court is whether this [6-week abortion ban], which severely restricts and, in many cases, prohibits a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, constitutes an "unreasonable invasion of privacy." ... We reject [the State's] argument to limit the right to privacy guaranteed in our constitution merely because the words used do not specifically mention medical care or bodily autonomy. This narrow interpretation would render the words "and unreasonable invasions of privacy" superfluous... [i]n interpreting this text, we must not only give the words their plain and ordinary meaning, but we must also give meaning to the entire text, and not render any provision meaningless. >
  
  Finally, based conservative judges