Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Phil H's avatar

Thanks for outlining this interesting legal argument. I'm an IT guy, not a lawyer, but both information technology and law deal with logic and abstractions. That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm something of a legal nerd.

I agree with you in giving Professor Koppelman props in coming up with an originalist argument for abortion as a Constitutional right.

But your refutation can be summed up this way: The original public meaning of the phrase "involuntary servitude" never included, in 1865 or since, pregnancy.

Expand full comment
Legalese's avatar

While I ultimately agree with you that there is no constitutional right to abortion, I don't get how someone could contend koppelman's argument is the only coherent argument.

I hold the exact opposite to be true. For koppelman to be correct, it would require accepting the proposition that property can be raped.

And if that were true I would not have been acquitted in those lawsuits brought against me by my couch... Or that microwaved cantaloupe... Or when I got Me-Tooed by all of those bagels...

What about the assertion that a women's right to choose is an unenumerated right protected by amendment IX?

Or that bodily autonomy is among the privileges and immunities of citizens, protected federally under Article IV privileges and immunities clause & applicable against the states under amendment XIV privileges or immunities clause?

Again, I don't think any of those arguments are correct but unlike the "no access to abortion is slavery" the article IV, amendment IX and amendment XIV arguments rely on logical, if incorrect, interpretations.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts