Does the government have a right to regulate women's uteruses?

The claim that bodily autonomy means no one but a woman may decide what happens in her uterus does not fully reflect how bodily autonomy already functions in law. In practice, the government routinely regulates what pregnant women can and cannot do with their bodies—particularly through medication restrictions—when those actions pose serious risks to developing human beings.

Certain drugs are prohibited or tightly restricted during pregnancy precisely because their use can cause grave harm to unborn children. In one well-known historical case, a medication widely taken by pregnant women resulted in babies being born without arms and legs. In response, the government intervened to halt its use to prevent further harm. Even strong advocates of personal liberty typically regard that intervention as justified rather than as an unacceptable intrusion into bodily autonomy.

This widely accepted regulation reveals an important principle: the government already claims—and exercises—the authority to dictate what happens within a pregnant woman’s body under specific circumstances. The governing standard is not absolute bodily autonomy but whether an action causes violent harm to another human being. When such harm is foreseeable, government intervention is considered legitimate and even necessary.

Applying that same principle consistently leads to a clear conclusion. If the government may restrict bodily choices to prevent severe harm to developing humans, then abortion—an act that directly ends the life of a developing human being—falls within the same category of conduct that the government can and should prohibit.