This Article seeks to refocus the abortion debate to include the impact of unwanted pregnancy on women. The first two sections of this Article challenge Bopp and Coleson's argument that a woman's right to choose an abortion enjoys no constitutional basis and that Roe should be reversed. A woman's constitutionally protected liberty and privacy rights are directly implicated by the state imposed pregnancy that results from restricted access to abortion. The third section disputes Bopp and Coleson's claim that the abortion right has become virtually inviolate, not subject to the state restrictions that the Court has allowed for other aspects of the privacy right. This Article challenges Bopp and Coleson's reading of the abortion precedents and argues that the right to choose an abortion has been subject to continuous narrowing since the time it was announced in Roe.
Cox, Refocusing Abortion Jurisprudence to Include the Woman: A Response to Bopp and Coleson and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1990 Utah L. Rev. 543-611.