It lasted 50 years, and helped provide the framework for many other privacy related protections, which the current supreme court is now dismantling, basically b

It lasted 50 years, and helped provide the framework for many other privacy related protections, which the current supreme court is now dismantling, basically because they can. Many other privacy related rulings, including those for mixed-race marriages and rights to contraception, where built partially upon RvW. One thing the RvW ruling had that a law wouldn't is a reluctance for most supreme courts to overturn it, since an interpretation exists and now helps form the basis for laws in the US. There's a specific name for this codified reluctance that I don't know at the moment. This is one of the things that the 4 "no" votes openly criticize the majority opinion for. "We're overturning it because we want to," is a short version of the majority's opinion on that. Ironically, it's court-based interpretations of the constitution that have been performed over the years also help provide the very case law that the SC uses to do the overturning. As one Tiktok creator pointed out, the constitution can fit in a pretty small booklet. The interpretations and the case law built off those interpretations fill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages.