It's a fine argument but would open up legal challenges on behalf of private organisations (drug dealers) entering into a private arrangement with their clients free from Government interference. We might be fine with this, I'm more fine with this than most people - but the Government currently retains the right to decide what services are and aren't legally valid.

If you choose to have an abortion and its illegal, then you are making the same choice as someone who wants to take LSD or Cocaine. The circumstances change and the moral timbre of discussion changes but the underlying argument doesn't. You can argue a right to privacy if you want but a judge would likely throw it out. The state regulates what private companies and individuals can legally offer - and provided the rules were changed within the democratic rules, those are the rules.

In short, you have to legalise abortions again - because bodily autonomy exists within a legal framework. You cannot argue the right to DO something with your body, only argue the right to PREVENT something being done to your body by someone else. You can come to a private arrangement with another person or organisation provided that arrangement is legal. You could argue the right to privacy on a tattoo (above an age restriction) for example but not on your right to take meth whenever you fancy.

In short, I think it's complicated and I've put down my thoughts and they're always open for challenge. I think every effort needs to be made to find loopholes in wording, in legal process and a campaign to bring a new version of Roe v Wade under a better legal argument should be in place right now. Apologies if you've read all this - this story is quite old and I've forgotten the gist of the thread your comment applies to. :o)