No. That was the interesting thing on the original opinion. It was never firmly decided on any constitutional principle. The “privacy” argument came in a judges argument about ‘in the shadow of a penumbra’(Wtf that means) that could be interpreted, under the right circumstances, as an occasional right to privacy. Part of what made Roe so inane was its lack of basis in anything having to do with them constitution given that the main job of the Supreme Court is to determine the viability of a law when reviewing its constitutionality. It was unfortunately a political decision without a basis in constitutionality (at least in reading through their decision). Though I think life and death matters fall outside the realm of privacy arguments and should be decided by society at large, it might have been interesting had they based their argument in something plausibly solid. It was a political decision given a patchwork argument for cover 😉
Thank you for clarifying. I wasn’t in the mood to sift through the language of the original decision.