Provide the title of the source.

Testing Pregnant Women for Drug Abuse Is Constitutional

Provide the source citation. Locate the citation by clicking on the Source Citation
link at the top of the page when viewing the source.
Scalia, Antonin, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. "Testing Pregnant Women for
Drug Abuse Is Constitutional." Opposing Viewpoints: Drug Abuse. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.
Apollo Library. 10 July 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?
&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ301012725
1&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>

Identify the principal issue presented by the source.

The principal issue the source presents is that using information gleaned from urine tests
to drug test pregnant women does not constitute unreasonable search as expressed in the
Fourth Amendment.

Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you
determined this.
The author identified his own bias quite clearly at the end of the first paragraph where he
answered the question of whether the constitution was violated by the drug testing of
pregnant women by saying, 'it plainly does not.' The author also expressed bias in other
ways including using flattering language description of hospital personnel as 'ministers of
mercy' and says the searches were 'obviously' not illegal.

Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you
determined this.
The author's argument is clearly written and well reasoned for the most part. One slightly
ambiguous connection to the case of U.S. v. Calandra was made in the second paragraph
without the author providing any context. While the case was used to bolster the
argument that the use of the urine sample was not a violation of the Constitution, it was
unclear how similar the two cases actually were, except for the fact they both dealt with
the Fourth Amendment.

Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

Based on the authors' experience and position, and in conjunction with their methodical
and knowledgeable approach to the subject, I do find the source credible.

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain
how you determined this.
The authors employed the rhetorical device of metaphor when they referred to medical
personnel as ‘ministers of mercy’. Next, they employed a proof surrogate when using the
case of U.S. v. Calendra to suggest, but not demonstrate, that the question of
unreasonable search was irrelevant to the issue of testing pregnant women for drug use
without their consent. They also frequently downplayed potential counterarguments
through the use of downplayers, i.e. words such as obviously, rudimentary, and irrelevant.
Finally, the authors employ a loaded question when asking if the court thinks that by
invalidating the particular searches addressed by the case that they can hope to actually
eliminate all drug testing.

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you
determined this.
Much of the authors’ argument is structured as an appeal to motive, specifically the
appeal to common belief that any thinking person would realize drug testing a urine
sample that was freely provided by an individual was irrelevant to the issue of an
unreasonable search as defined by the Fourth Amendment. The authors also tread on a
slippery slope as they imply that the majority decision of the court will open up the gates
to excessive reinterpretation of the Amendments and the removal of ‘social judgments‘
from the public to the will of the courts.

State one argument made by the author.

The primary argument of this article is that the use of urine sample results by law
enforcement is legal.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

The first premise of the argument is that United States law, specifically the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution only prevents searches of a person and their effects.
The second premise of the argument is that taking a urine sample is not an unreasonable
search, and urine is not an effect of the person who passes the urine. The conclusion of
this argument is that it is permissible for law enforcement to use drug positive urine
sample results against the subjects who provided them.

Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak?

Explain how you determined this.
The authors argument is invalid, for even if the two premises are true, they do not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For instance, even if the Fourth Amendment did not
apply at all to this situation, there might be state laws or patient confidentiality practices
which preempted law enforcement from obtaining or using the results of urine samples in
drug cases. Because the argument is invalid, the criteria of soundness or unsoundness do
not apply. However, the argument would also have to be considered weak, partly based
on the fact that the Supreme Court actually ruled the use of the samples illegal, but also
because even in the absence of this corroboration by the Court, there were many
arguments as to why the premises were not likely to be true.

Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
The authors did employ moral reasoning to come to the conclusion. This moral
reasoning was indicated by two clues. The first was the frequent use of rhetorical device
and slanted language, which included terms such as 'ungentlemanly, sneaky,' on one hand,
and the reference to the persecuted doctors and nurses as 'ministers of mercy,' on the
other. The second indication of moral reasoning is the actual opinion of the judges which
is that the purpose of the searches was a 'benign' one followed by their observation that
'no good deed goes unpunished.'