Things that the fundamental constitutional right to privacy (first discussed, at length, in Griswold v. Connecticut), as described through the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights protect against: (1) Birth Control, (2) Abortion
Things that somehow fail to (so far) meet the constitutional standard: (1) Unwarranted personal searchs during a time of 'war,' (2) The right to smoke a cigarette in a bar, (3) ad infinitum.
I, personally, am not a huge fan of the ACLU or NYCLU. However, I would like Norman Siegel to get off his ass and do something about the constitutional deprivations that are occuring in New York City and New York state. I heard a challenge was set up for the subway searches, which is good, but I don't think the smoking ban is going anywhere soon (and let's not forget about the medical marijuana fiasco that has been going on for months). Our country, and the citizens throughout, cannot pick and choose amongst constitutional rights. You set a line, and you cannot cross it. If a judge decides that no right to privacy exists (because, quite simply, it doesn't exist anywhere in the text), then that's fine, and the legislature will have to act responsibly. If, however, judges establish a "right to privacy" for more acceptable and populist ideals, simple teleological consistency requires the extension of that right to less eagerly accepted (but just as deserving) rights.
I love my freedom, although I might be willing to submit to a slight slackening of it under extreme and bizarre circumstances (which, thankfully, do not yet exist). But beyond freedom, I love consistency and predictability. How about the legislatures and courts stop picking and choosing amongst the "rights" protected, and either give us all of them, or take them all away.