Last weekend, I had the privilege of traveling to the nation’s capital to protest abortion in the annual March for Life, organized by Illini Collegians for Life, a secular student organization dedicated to protecting life from conception until natural death.

It has been 33 years since the Supreme Court decided the infamous Roe v. Wade case in a 7-2 decision. Over the years, defense of this decision and abortion in general have varied greatly, mainly ranging from assertions that unborn babies are not human to a simple question of liberty.

The landmark decision itself hinges on a supposed constitutional right to privacy, a right drawn from a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Connecticut statute prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples.

Ask someone to point to the basis for this assertion of the right privacy in the Constitution and you will be directed to the Fourth Amendment, the opening of which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Ninth Amendment is often evoked as well, which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Then, ask the person espousing a constitutional right-to-privacy if private ownership of guns is a right secured by the Constitution. More often than not, the person advocating a right to abortion denies the right to bear arms, based on the belief that the Constitution does not explicitly lay out this right – instead this is a privilege to be enjoyed only by members of a militia. Never mind the fact that one definition of the term “militia” includes all able-bodied members of a state that can be drafted into service.

While the Second Amendment is given no room to stretch, the Fourth Amendment somehow is elastic enough to include the right to kill an unborn baby. Even if a right-to-privacy advocate does not deny the right to gun ownership, it is important to note that the Fourth Amendment does not mention “privacy” and guards only against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Privacy advocates then invoke the Ninth Amendment to protect this supposedly sacrosanct right, assuming that anything not strictly forbidden by law is a right. Simply flipping a few pages back in the Constitution to Article I will confirm that establishing these other rights is a duty bestowed upon the nation’s legislative branch.

However, the legislative branch did not decide Roe v. Wade. Until 1973 there existed laws unique to each state, indeed, passed by the legislative bodies of each state. But with one fell swoop, seven justices high on power and progressivism confirmed a flawed precedent, amended our Constitution, and legalized the death of 47 million people.

It should be noted that among the two dissenters was a man to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist. He should be mourned as a man who possessed an excellent understanding of the Constitution and was dedicated to defending those not able to defend themselves.

So-called “pro-choice” advocates should realize that the Roe v. Wade decision – and their espousal of it as the saving decision of the high court – renders their self-ascribed name incredibly hypocritical. They have denied states the right to choice ensured to them by our federalist founding fathers.

We marched in Washington last weekend to remind the nation that life begins at conception. Naysayers may deny the humanity of the preborn, but simple biology supports this position, and ever-evolving technology will convert even the most ardently cynical abortion advocates.

The simple overturning of Roe would not be sufficient in ensuring justice for all in this nation. All I ask now is that abortion advocates realize that by supporting Roe, they make a mockery of the Constitution.

John Ostrowski is a junior in Communications and a member of Illini Collegians for Life. His column appears Tuesdays. He can be reached at [email protected].