On the website http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ , the opinion of the court issued by Justice Blackmun, stated in the suit brought forth against the state of Texas in Roe v Wade, there were alleged infractions against 5 of Roe's constitutional rights. These were against her 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights. Although the final decision was based on the violation of her 14th amendment rights, there were also arguably violations against some of the others as well. For the reasons I will state below, I do consider Roe to be viable.
With respect to her 1st amendment rights, there was nothing the state of Texas did which restricted her religion, or her ability to speak or assemble in public, so this is really a solid NO for Roe.
The 4th Amendment secures The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This I believe is in favor of Roe, with respect to a Doctor/Patient confidentiality. This would prevent the State of Texas from being included in any medical decisions made by the patient.
The 5th Amendment, depending on the debate of when human life begins, actually works for and against Roe. This Amendment states that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This life by some could be defined to include the unborn child, so this works against Roe. When Thomas Jefferson drafted the constitution, he borrowed a phrase from John Locke, an 18th century English Philosopher. The phrase life, liberty, and property, outlined...