Beyond the mere gratifying words in the national document termed a legal constitution, constitutional amendments discourse awakes the natural virtue of belonging and freedom in human nature. Human nature allows them to freely participate in various practices as granted in their rights and privileges, which are fundamental to human growth, socialization, and development.

Every person is subject to privacy, as many rights activists claims. Any intention to breach the privacy privilege of one person with the intention of self-gain is prohibited and punishable. According to Taylor & Ralph (n.p), in the United States of America, the constitutional Fourth Amendment repudiates the government’s unreasonable searches and seizure that breaks the personal right to privacy. Therefore, the police should obtain a warrant of search and seizure before conducting any searches. Additionally, the search and seizure must be particularly on who will be seized or searched. For example, in the seminal cases, Riley vs. California and United States vs. Wurie, police, after arresting Riley and Wurie, extended a search to their cellphones without a court warrant and proceeded to look for evidence that may support the case against the arrestees (Taylor & Ralph, n.p). According to Newell et al. (229), Riley, in his assertion, claimed that the Cellphone had a broad base of personal functions and was not worthy of disclosure due to its advanced computability, internet connectivity, and storage capacity. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, clarified that searches and seizures by the police should not be extended to Cellphones as they contain personal information, and doing so breaches the arrestee’s privacy right police, therefore, ought to get a warrant first before searching through the cell phones (Newell et al., 229). Additionally, Fifth Amendment justifies the protection of private information as a providence of the rights against self-incrimination.

Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution proscribes the state from establishing any law that invades personal autonomy protection rights based on the preceding amendments. Justice Louis regarded the right to privacy as one of the most valuable rights in the human rights basket (Burt & Andrew, 1-6). Any attempt by the government’s agencies or authorities to violate this right is unjustifiable and disrespectful to the Fourth constitutional amendment. She claims that police departments can only search for information about a particular individual or seize their properties with a valid search warrant that the judge can only grant.

This paper deeply discusses the phenomenal concept of the effects of the constitutional amendments on the enforcement and granting of the right to privacy over the years. The paper integrates the discourse to give a deep understanding of what the US Constitution provides regarding rights to privacy in abortion, contraceptives, publicity, and personalities.

Court Cases Dealing With the Right to Privacy and Abortion.

The liberty guarantee of the fourteenth amendment that promotes the rights of privacy has, over the years, been scrutinized by the supreme court, weighing down how the decisions resulting from the privilege of privacy rights affect procreation, medical treatments, and its termination, child nurturing, and marriages (Hill & Jessie, 471-478). Many Americans supported the claim that the Supreme Court should exercise the broad reading, recognition, and interpretation of the Constitution, not judgments based on specific constitutional clauses. The cases below discuss how privacy rights were affected regarding abortion.

Roe v. Wade Case

In the early 1970s, Roe, a pregnant woman, ignited a fire of constitutional challenge criticizing the fairness of Texas criminal law that denied women rights to access and practice abortion on a personal decision basis except when the mother is in danger and prescribed by the professional medical officer (Soni et al., 287). The claims of Roe were supported by Hallford, who was facing criminal charges for conducting abortion processes. Roe and her acquaintances claimed that abortion decisions are essential as one may not be prepared for parenthood, or pregnancy might result from contraceptive failure. However, Wade, a law defendant, argued that legalizing abortion poses a dire threat to the future of marriages and women’s health impairments.

Upon listening to the case, the judge consolidated a final submission of judgment which contravened the constitutions and gave rise to new controversies. The judge, in the verdict, stated that state laws that restrict the rights of privacy in abortion violate the Ninth and Fourteenth constitutional Amendments rights that were solely established for the people to be comfortable with their mode of liv