I agree that Ms. McCorveys Constitutional right to privacy was violated by the Texas
law that makes having or attempting to have an abortion a crime unless it is by medical
advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. That conclusion is based on a
1) The Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. I argue
that if a person is to be secure in their person, that is to say, have control over
their own body, that the choice to terminate a pregnancy can also not be seized
from them. The simple fact that something, such as a personal decision, is not
2) The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Without
access to abortion, the law allows men to walk away from a pregnancy that could
turn their lives upside down but forces women to put their life on hold and risk
losing their job, facing unaffordable medical bills, raising a child they dont have
carry, deliver, and either raise a child or make other arrangements for that child.
In order to give men and women equal protection from the upheaval caused by
an intimate one between the woman, her husband, and her physician; that decision
can no more be seized from her without reason than any physical property, so
choice?
Griswold and Eisenstadt, the court has established that birth control is a personal
choice about which the government has no business meddling; the situation of the
woman has no bearing upon her right to contraception; allowing contraception has
health benefits as well as life benefits. The protection from unreasonable search
and seizure protects personal decisions, and the fourteenth amendment prohibits
the inherent disadvantage women would face compared to men in terms of being
Griswold and Eisenstadt, it stands to reason that abortion, the logical extension of
birth control, is a personal decision that the government has no business in, that
whether a woman is married, single, or has been sexually assaulted should have
no bearing on her access to abortion, that, as mortality is not the only health risk
of pregnancy, it should not be the only one protected. The two cases have
established that a woman should not have to be pregnant if she doesnt want to be.
6) If one believes, as I do, that a fetus is not alive until the point of viability, than the
legality of abortion, at the very least to that point, should be the logical outcome.
7) If one believes that a fetus is a living child from the moment if its conception
the third amendment forbids the forced quartering of soldiers. If one combines the
illegality of forcing someone to quarter a soldier and the right to privacy within
the house and body, than it stands to reason that one cannot be forced to quarter
8) Currently, abortions are illegal, but they but not only do they exist; they are
prevalent. The only difference between the current situation and one in which
Your Honor, the legally, morally, and healthy decision is clearly to allow easily
accessible abortion, at least until the point of viability. I have said my piece. The case is
Sincerely,
Annie Daley