Question

the supreme court based its decision in the 1973 roe v. wade case on an interpretation that the fourteenth amendment implied a right to ?

Answer 1

the right to privacy in regards to the due process clause of the 14th ammendment

Answer 2

I never read the 14th amendment but I know it really not about privacy. The 14th amendment was passed after the Civil War in 1968, shortly after that the Supreme Court used it to require each State to add the Bill of Rights to their Constitution.
Frankly just reading the US Constitution will not give a lot of understanding of it's meaning in the 18th century language and the times it was written. What people don't really understand it's the thousands of Supreme Courts previous decisions is what are truly relevant. There's one truth in though and that it can be entirely rewrote and if accepted by the people, three quarters of the states, the Supreme Court would have to interpret that, if you had a Supreme Court in the new Constitution.

Answer 3

The clause in the 14th amendment that applies here states: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". This is the due process clause, and the portion of the clause the Supreme Court used was the "deprive any person of liberty". The liberty to privacy was read as implied by the Supreme Court, so the only way a citizen could be deprived of it was through due process. However, there are currently four types of due process in legal terms, and the one that was applied here is "substantive due process" which prevents legislatures from impinging on those liberties, in this case, the right to privacy.

Hence, privacy is the implied portion of the 14th amendment, and the rest is a clarification of how the Supreme Court got there.

Answer 4

The 14th Amendment just extended previous understandings of a select few toward all citizens, at least male. As for privacy it is still up in the air since the Patriot Act and is presently up for Supreme Court decisions regarding Snowden's revelations. The basic question comes down to does the government have right or necessity to monitor to detect something illegal or must you first detect something illegal to monitor as was previously done under search and secure laws.