rule of supervisory liability under § 1983. Defendants Hooker, Ehrin-ghaus, Baddour, Miller, and Swofford have not, therefore, established their qualified immunity defense at this stage in the proceedings. Defendant Dorrance has failed to show that Plaintiffs’ cannot prove a set of facts regarding unconstitutionality of his inquires into their sex lives. The Supreme Court held that “[i]f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 93 S.Ct. 705,
holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material holding that the right of privacy does not attach to matters already within the public domain holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters recognizing limits on an individuals right to privacy and requiring the government to move a compelling interest only if there will be disclosure of protected information