If I have to pick, I say Roe v. Wade is the more likely (nothing to do with preference). Just need the court made up of a certain set. Easier than actually changing an amendment (presuming we aren’t just talking court’s interpretation). Also, if technology advances to artificial wombs (and they are being worked on in the early stages now), that’ll be used as a rallying cry/excuse.
You’re right in that the right to privacy has been applied to both sex and abortion and… pretty much nowhere else. If I save a memo to myself on my cell phone, that’s not protected by the right to privacy. If I tell my son something in confidence, not protected by the right to privacy. If I grow a marijuana plant in my house where no one else can observe it, not protected. If I write something in my diary, not protected. If I go to a particular website, not protected. If I set up a security camera in my home and don’t want the police to see it, not protected. If my doctor wants to prescribe me cocaine for migraines, not protected. If I text my friend, not protected. If I don’t want my bank account to be subpoenaed or my medical records, not protected. If I sit out in my backyard surrounded by a ‘privacy’ fence and don’t want the government to watch me, not protected. If I call my mother, not protected. If I want to have an abortion(prior to 20 weeks)? Yep, your privacy in an inalienable right assumed in the Constitution. If you don’t see why some people would have a problem with that, I’m not sure what to say. Substantive due process is actually a different issue and while it’s tangentially relevant to Roe v. Wade, it’s not really the problem with Roe v. Wade. Substantive due process has been much more consistently applied, but Roe v. Wade simply uses substantive due process to protect the right to privacy which is the stickler.
I’m saying that the “right” to contraception and sodomy are things that almost everyone agrees are positive things in today’s world. That’s why we don’t hear much complaining about them. However, as a justification for making them constitutional rights, the doctrine is on very shaky ground.
I mean, I certainly believe that contraception should be available and encouraged. But if a state lost its mind and decided to ban them because it believed in increased promiscuity or something along those lines, I really have to scratch my head to see how this undefined right to privacy not listed in the Constitution gives me an unquestionable right to use contraceptives.
As a student of law, I think that constitutional doctrines should be consistent; and if I have a right to use contraceptives, why not heroin? I know that there are differences between the two, but if all we are talking about is privacy, then those actions are equally private.
Roe vs. Wade is far more likely to be overturned.
No one says Abortions are mortal. In the distant future, the topic might be viewed a bit like slavery. Utterly disgusting. Oh, they would still happen abortions were banned, but they would happen far less.