Abortion and the Privacy Amendment A U.S. citizen's "right to privacy" was first discussed in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article in which two Boston lawyers, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren defined it as "the right to be left alone." Since then, the right to privacy has provided the basis for a series of groundbreaking and controversial constitutional interpretations by courts throughout the United States, culminating in the Roe v. Wade of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. While the decisions came down in favor of a right to privacy, they rested largely on a broad and controversial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With the plethora of privacy issues facing courts and policymakers in today's information age, the time for an amendment specifying the inalienable right to privacy is rapidly approaching. Despite all the social, medical, and religious nuances in the abortion debate, Roe v. The Wade opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, has held for twenty-four years that the right to choose an abortion is part of a woman's "right to personal privacy," a right that Blackmun said is "grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment." concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action." However, some dispute that the Fourteenth Amendment does not forcefully identify the unalienable right to privacy as a constitutional right. Justice Rehnquist, in the 1973 dissenting opinion, wrote: "the Court had necessarily to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the authors of the amendment." For this reason, some scholars, as well as members of the current Court, consider Roe v. Wade a fragile decision that... at the center of the paper……s is a person. This would not be an abortion amendment. It would instead protect citizens from intrusions into all aspects of their lives and computers have opened family photo albums of people, and the information revolution has just begun to reinvent the world. The Privacy Amendment could protect celebrities from an overzealous press and individual citizens from government genetic data or medical record banks. It could allow courts to decide what information can be released for the public good and could allow future privacy issues to be resolved while respecting personal rights. Without an amendment, the United States could become increasingly dependent on a questionable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving citizens naked under the beam of a wandering technological spotlight.