The language of the 4th does not differentiate. It does not specify government seizure. Anti-choicers claim that the unborn is a full-fledged human being. I disagree, but if it were true, the woman's body is being seized by this being against her will. She has a constitutional right against this unwilling seizure -- in what other circumstances can someone attached themselves to another person against their will?
Ah, I see--I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were claiming something else. However, your argument is still in error.
First, even setting aside cases such as someone grabbing you and refusing to let go (e.g. something like the Old Man of the Sea), I can immediately and easily point to a circumstance where someone attaches themselves to another person against their will: Siamese twins. No Siamese twin, after all, ever
agreed to be attached to the other. Indeed, someone is far more "seized" by a Siamese twin than by a pregnancy; pregnancies last for less than a year and are less cumbersome than having a Siamese twin. Thus if we were to follow your logic that someone attaching themselves to you against your will gives you a constitutional right to get rid of them, a Siamese twin has a
constitutional right to kill their twin if they want.
Second, it is implausible to construe the act of someone attaching themselves to another person against their will as a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure (as applied to persons) has long been understood to mean actual restraining. While there has been some debate as to things like whether it requires literal physical restraining or is accomplished by officers behaving in a way to make someone
believe they are unable to legally leave (United States v. Medenhall), or if mere attempt to restrain qualifies (Torres v. Madrid), restraining someone's movement intentionally is a critical aspect of the seizure of a person. A nicely clear definition found in the unanimous decision Brendlin v. California states "A person is seized and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action when officers, by physical force or a show of authority, terminate or restrain the person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." The state of pregnancy may be cumbersome, especially in the later months, but it is hard to see how it qualifies as a seizeure in the sense of the Fourth Amendment. (this isn't even getting into the question of whether it would count as an
unreasonable seizure)
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Fourth Amendment
does only apply to government power, not that of private individuals. Your contention seems to be that it doesn't specify government but that is so obvious from context it doesn't need to be expressed.
Longstanding and consistent precedent backs this up. It's exactly why some Fourth Amendment casework is about the question of whether a search/seizure counts as being done by the government or by a private actor. If, as you claim, it applied to everyone, then there would be no need to settle these questions. Are all of the various Supreme Court decisions (to say nothing of the countless lower court decisions) throughout history on whether something constituted a
governmental search or seizure (and therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment) or a search or seizure from a private actor (and therefore not subject to the Fourth Amendment) simply them wasting their time?
Indeed, the Supreme Court could not be clearer on the subject in its opinions. For example, consider United States v. Jacobsen from 1980. In this case, the situation was that a package got damaged and employees of a a freight carrier delivering it (along with a lot of other things) opened it as a result, they discovered a powdery substance and alerted the Drug Enforcement Administration. They took part of the powder to run a test on it and discovered it was cocaine, leading to arrests. Thus the question was whether the governments' actions constituted a search or seizure, because this was originally done by private actors prior. In the decision, it is bluntly stated:
"This Court has also consistently construed this protection [of the Fourth Amendment] as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.""
By the way, it should be noted that this majority opinion was joined by Blackmun, the guy who wrote Roe v. Wade. Actually, the quote within the above quote is from a Blackmun opinion! The guy who
wrote Roe v. Wade explicitly stated that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to private individuals and obviously disagrees with your assertion. (again, I feel his reasoning in Roe v. Wade was very wrong... but it nevertheless was superior to claiming the right to an abortion is found in the Fourth Amendment)
But of course someone might say that this was a 7-2 case, with the dissent saying that it was a Fourth Amendment violation. The problem is, the dissent didn't take any issue with the idea that the Fourth Amendment applied only to government action. Its disagreement was on whether the prior search/seizure by the private actors meant that the government's subsequent actions didn't constitute such (more technically, it felt some portions of the case were unclear and wanted more factfinding--the point is it clearly took no disagreement with the assertion that the Fourth Amendment applied only to the government). If the Fourth Amendment applies to everyone, government or not, then there was no reason for any of them--majority or dissent--to draw this distinction at all.
Or how about we go back quite a bit further, to the 1921 decision Burdeau v. McDowell. Here a thief stole documents from someone that demonstrated illegal acts on their part, then later turned them over to law enforcement. The question was whether or not the government using them in a case constituted a Fourth Amendment violation (it included it did not). Again we see:
"The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and, as shown in the previous cases,
its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority,
and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority, it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued."
Now, like before, there was a dissent in this case. But again like before, no disagreement is taken with the claim that the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action; the dissent's disagreement was concerning other things.
From what I can tell, there is not a single Supreme Court opinion--not even a dissent--that claims that the Fourth Amendment applies to non-government actors. There are cases where it is stated that a private actor with some kind of governmental
connection that committed a search or seizure could run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, but again this still requires a government connection. Someone is free to correct me and point to an opinion that did express such a thing--but having looked at various ones throughout history, I see no one giving this opinion, even in a dissent.
As a brief aside, I wish to make something clear, as someone may misunderstand: Obviously, acts such as kidnapping, robbery, or trespassing are still illegal when committed by individuals rather than the government. However, they are illegal due to
laws passed that made them illegal; they are not illegal due to the Fourth Amendment.
So in summary, it seems abundantly clear that the Fourth Amendment only restricts the government to begin with. Further, the state of pregnancy can hardly be considered a "seizure" under its definition anyway. And if we were to conclude that all of this somehow grants a right to an abortion, one has to conclude by the logic presented that it grants someone a right to kill their Siamese twin.
It's an outrage to force a woman to endure it against her will. You can't force her to donate blood or donate a kidney.
These qualify much better as being a "seizure" than anything related to abortion is (after all, they actually legally require loss of movement in forcing them to participate in the procedure), not to mention that there's obviously a difference between requiring someone to submit to a medical procedure versus simply prohibiting it (abortion is, ultimately, a medical procedure). Requiring someone to procure a kidney for donation is a much more plausible claim of being a deprivation of liberty without due process or law, or for that matter a loss of privacy, than banning kidney transplants would be. Much as is the difference between a law mandating abortions compared to one that bans abortions.
You can't force her to provide shelter to a freezing traveler. She has the right to expel an invader from her house, even if that person is certain to freeze to death.
I believe it is
absolutely constitutional to force people to provide shelter to a freezing traveler. The Third Amendment's prohibition on requiring people in time of peace to have to quarter soldiers (though it allows it during wartime) would be pointless if it were inherently unconstitutional to force people to provide shelter to others. Whether it would be good
policy to pass such a law requiring people to give shelter is another matter altogether, but the question here is the issue of
constitutionality.
And of course, if the unborn is not a human being, as I assert, then abortion is perfectly moral.
Even if true, whether something is moral or not has nothing to do with questions of constitutionality.
