Sandra Zubieta Zubieta 1

Professor Kroger

English 13011

27 September 2022

Bodily Autonomy

Globally, issues on the extent government officials have a say on our bodies have risen.

Examples like drugs, reproductive rights, and military are among the few controversial topics.

Bodily autonomy is a very important topic especially to me as a woman. I was able to see this

topic flourish in these two very distinct yet similar articles. Both articles allow the reader to

critically think and comprehend the different situations where there is legislation on our bodies

and where we should draw the line. Analyzing both articles using their structure and evidence I

was able to formulate and think much deeper bodily autonomy and where there should the line

be drawn.

Guido Calabresi, a former dean and Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University,

delivered a lecture at Case Western Reserve University on this very topic. Law students

attending this institution were able to be presented by a very credible scholar. The institution

invites a distinguished scholar that delivers a formal public address to the students known as the

Schroeder Lecture. Calabresi was chosen to deliver a lecture at the institution to his audience of

students. The students all attend Law School and are most likely familiar with the cases and the

language he uses to convey his message. The lecture delivered by Dean Calabresi was later

converted into an article in 1991 titled Do We Own Our Bodies? This article is about the

different examples on where the agency of who owns our body comes in to play.
 Zubieta 2

Calabresi sets the stage by beginning his lecture the same way he will end it, posing the

question of “Do We Own Our Bodies?”. (5 & 18) He delivers an example to the Case Western

Law students on a case in Pennsylvania that introduces a bigger question which is, how far

should the state be able to intervene when it comes to donations that can save a life. He begins

with a case in which bone marrow and saving a life were in question. Calabresi follows with

examples of abortion, military, and experiments. He also addresses the concerns of what it would

be like if certain things were to be passed. If they were to be passed, would they be constitutional

or favor the privileged and instead go against minorities who have faced years of discrimination

in this country. While he conveys these examples, Calabresi acknowledges the 3 big questions he

posed at the beginning of the article. “Was the court right in making that decision over the bone

marrow? What is a constitutional issue? Would it be constitutional to be ordered to give parts

who need them?” Finally, if made constitutional “when should the legislature require such

donations?” (6) He structures his argument and point with his examples and input on the

question being asked. Each paragraph sets the stage on new examples, posing the questions once

again, and follows with the input of Calabresi. As a result, Calabresi’s argument is very distinctly

structured in comparison to Lopez.

 German Lopez, a Vox writer and drug policy reporter, published an article titled I Used

To Support Legalizing All Drugs. Then The Opioid Epidemic Happened in 2017. Lopez begins

by presenting his opinion before the opioid epidemic. He then goes on to note his change of heart

while listing the devastating numbers of opioid overdose. Opioid overdose is deadlier than any

other drug crisis in U.S. history. He highlights the role the government played on expanding the

growth of the epidemic and their delay on taking action towards a solution to the big problem

now facing the people. Lopez notes his change of opinion with the use of evidence of credible

sources. He mentions that he is “genuinely scared how America would pay for full legalization”

because of such bad legislation during the opioid epidemic.

Lopez is able to convey his point through the use of evidence. He structures his article

very differently from Clabresi. Lopez began by stating his opinions of how full legalization

could work. He quickly disapproves his own words through the use of evidence throughout the

article. The evidence plays into the

structure and purpose of his article. He

allows the reader to view firsthand his

way of thinking. Lopez uses visual

representations to get his point across.

He is able to even further convey the

devastating result of the opioid

epidemic. As a result, he strengthens his

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose
killings
argument as to why harder drugs should
accessed 3 November 2022
not be legalized.
 Lopez and Calabresi’s articles are very distinct. Calabresi uses many different examples

to communicate on the different policies and rights surrounding the legislation of the body.

Lopez on the other hand focuses on one topic alone, the opioid epidemic and drugs. The myriad

of examples compared to just the one on the different articles does not take away from the one

thing they have in common which is the legislation of the body. Both articles discuss the

government’s role on various topics and the agency they have (or don’t have) over it. We are

able to see the different examples and how the government comes in to play, allowing us to

formulate our own ideas if its right or wrong.

As I read both articles, my opinions were made very clear. As a woman, I believe it is my

right to have a say on what happens with my body. We should have the agency over our body.

Furthermore, I do believe there should be a limit. While reading Lopez’s article, it was made

clear that drug issues are a big problem. Having opioid overdose being the leading cause of death

sets off alarms. There is no denying the fact that drugs will be around, and they will be accessed.

This access is unsafe and not ideal. Additionally, its been proven that no matter the harsh

sentence, the rates stay the same. The addiction of that one drug is more powerful that the will of

the addicted human, the choice was already made for them over their body. Understanding that,

these articles allowed me to critically think about the regulation on drugs. How marijuana should

be legalized but maybe keeping the harder drugs illegal is something that should be focused on

and funded. So much money goes into policy making and charging people with marijuana

possession. Instead, those funds can help draw the line between what drugs are legal or not.
 Bodily autonomy is described as the right of governance over your own body. These two

articles discuss the legislation of our bodies. They help convey the different examples in which

this discussion is incorporated. I was an individual that use to believe that we should have a say

on everything that has to do with our bodies, but not everyone has that luxury to choose. The

articles allowed me to really question the idea of Do We Own Our Bodies?

Work cited

Lopez, German. “I Used to Support Legalizing All Drugs. Then the Opioid Epidemic

Happened.” Vox. September 12, 2017.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/20/15328384/opioid-epidemic-drug-

legalization

Calabresi, Guido. “Do We Own Our Bodies?” Health Matrix, vol 1:5, 1991.

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1295/Do_We_Own_Our_Bo

dies.pdf?sequence=2

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose killings

accessed 3 November 2022 https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html