Americans’ right to abortion is founded upon a more fundamental right to privacy — particularly when it comes to matters involving marriage, children, and sexuality. The Christian Right never fully accepted privacy rights, especially where sex was concerned, and abortion gives them a stronger reason to fight it. They are on the wrong side of this argument, though, because eliminating privacy rights — including those dealing with sex — would undermine much of what America takes for granted.
In 1923, the Supreme Court ruled in Meyer v. Nebraska that parents have a right to teach their kids a foreign language. The 1925 case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters held that parents have a right to send their children to private schools No such rights are listed in the constitution, but the existence of fundamental rights of parents to raise children as they see fit is inferred from the idea that there is a sphere of privacy around the family where government authority is sharply restricted.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be limited on the basis of the race of those involved. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, but the Court held that some rights are fundamental to our existence and need not be explicitly listed in the Constitution’s text. Once again, the idea that there exists a zone of privacy in our most intimate relationships, especially marriage, was reinforced.
In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma that the sterilization of certain people (like habitual criminals) violated a fundamental right to procreate. No such right is listed in the Constitution, but people would be outraged if the government implemented such a policy today. If there is no right to privacy and the state can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, how can the state not also have the authority to prevent her from ever becoming pregnant?
If Americans have a right to bear children, don’t they also have a right not to have children? It would be difficult to argue that there is a fundamental, constitutional right of privacy which encompasses a right to procreate but which doesn’t cover a right not to procreate. If there is a right not to procreate, however, how could that not cover the means by which people could avoid procreation — specifically, contraceptives and abortion?
The 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut held that there is a right of married couples to information about birth control; the 1972 case of Eisenstadt v. Baird extended this to unmarried couples. There is nothing in the constitution about this, but the Court held that the state has no authority to interfere with these relationships and that the listed rights in the Constitution are not exhaustive of all rights which people have. There is a zone of privacy which must be protected.
In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. The Court reasoned that people enjoy a sphere of sexual privacy and autonomy in which the government should not interfere — in other words, that people have a right to be left alone in their bedrooms. The Constitution mentions no such right, but what is the alternative? If there is no such right, what limits are there on the government’s authority to regulate sexual activity?
Should the state prohibit doctors from informing us about all valid medical options? Should the state restrict access to medical procedures on the basis of some people’s religious objections? None of this makes sense, but there is no explicit constitutional right to such things. Instead, there is an implied right to privacy that covers a right to make decisions about what happens to our own bodies. If we are not to be slaves, we must be able to decide what happens to our bodies.
The Supreme Court upheld a fundamental right to abortion in the 1972 case of Roe v. Wade. According to the Court, a right to privacy is implied throughout the Bill of Rights and has been reaffirmed in multiple decisions. This right must extend to a woman’s pregnancy because whether she has children, whether she is married, and how those children are raised are all recognized as matters which must be left to the individual with minimal state interference.
The Christian Right’s attacks on abortion cannot be separated from attacks on modernity — especially attacks on modern liberty and choice in sexual matters. The Christian Right was born as a reaction to changes in women’s social roles, growing sexual liberty, and increased sexual knowledge in the early 20th century. Even today, the Christian Right can be defined as a reaction to women’s behavior and sexual liberties.
Where others see sexual liberty, the Christian Right sees sexual license. This is a problem for two reasons. First, sexual license is contrary to God’s will. Second, controlling sexuality is key to maintaining social order. When sexuality is improperly controlled, anarchy and chaos result. Women ignoring their god-given social roles are part of uncontrolled sexuality because women are defined as the keepers of moral virtue in the home and sexual virtue generally.
Thus, the Christian Right locates most modern problems in the failure of society to control women and sexuality. Abortion is not just murder, but like contraception it also disconnects sexual activity from procreation. This is contrary to God’s will and allows for sexual activity to proceed unchecked. Sex without consequences is wrong because consequences help keep sex from leading to anarchy.
Abortion rights and sexual liberties are attacked by attacking the idea that people have a right to privacy. This isn’t tactical — they honestly don’t believe that we have a right to be left alone. If we are left alone, we may fail to act in accordance with God’s will. This must be prevented if social order is to be maintained.
Attacks on privacy are attacks on modernity itself. Modern society is defined in part by limitations on state power against the actions of individuals. A right to privacy requires the state to justify limitations on our freedoms. The Christian Right favors a state based upon biblical principles where the Bible has already justified state authority to limit people's freedom.
