News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

Toppling Abortion Would Have Far-Reaching Consequences

By Justine M. Nagurney

While I agree with John Hastrup’s main point in his op-ed, “Roe Versus Whom?” (Jan. 5), that the issue of abortion is often given undue attention in political campaigns to the detriment of both parties, John Hastrup is wrong to claim that overturning Roe v. Wade would be insignificant.

Without getting into a point by point rebuttal of the obvious fallacies of arguments such as  “nothing would likely prevent a woman from crossing state lines to have an abortion” (money comes to mind as one potential obstacle), I will mention only the most important point: the constitutional protection of sexual and familial privacy.

Roe v. Wade recognized that the right to privacy included the right to terminate a pregnancy (subject to certain limitations).  The entire foundation of the right to privacy is freedom to make choices about reproduction. The right to privacy was first recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 when the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Connecticut criminal law which prohibited the use of contraceptives by anyone (including a married couple). The only constitutional basis under which Roe v. Wade can be overturned is with a decision that the liberty protected by the constitution does not include the right to privacy.

Such a decision would enable states to pass new laws outlawing abortion (which is not exactly unlikely since state legislatures have enacted 380 measures restricting abortion since 1995 alone, even banning it outright in Louisiana and Utah) or enforce the Comstock laws still on the books in many states. This has repercussions for all kinds of intimate decisions, including contraception, and (of particular note to college students) all sex outside marriage.

Hastrup makes the mistake of believing one can isolate abortion from other important rights. By ignoring the importance of the broader issue, he does his argument, and us all, a disservice.

JUSTINE M. NAGURNEY ’06

Jan. 12, 2005

The writer is a member of Students for Choice.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags