The reasoning in Roe v. Wade relies heavily on the 14th amendment and an inherent right to privacy, and proponents for it continue to argue in that vein.
But why not use the 13th amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Forcing a woman to use her own body to sustain another is clearly servitude. Especially if the fetus is considered to be a person. And especially in cases of rape, where the presumption must be that the woman is involuntarily serving the interests of the rapist.
And the woman would clearly be the only person who could definitively confirm that her servitude is voluntary, and thus allowed to continue.
That would seem to be a slam-dunk, black-and-white, open-and-shut case for a right to abortions.
What am I missing? Why wasn’t Roe decided on that ground? Why is the 13th ignored in current discussions?
And if the draft decision became official, could a district judge re-open the issue, striking down abortion restrictions with this as a new, unaddressed, legal basis?