News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
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.