Skip to main content

Even the unborn are entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections

Written By | May 5, 2022
Unborn, SCOTUS, 14th Amendment, Roe v. Wade

US Supreme Court building. Photo: dbking via Wikipedia Commons, File:US Supreme Court DC.jpg – Wikimedia Commons. Inset, portion of 14th Amendment.

WASHINGTON.  Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has sent the left into conniption fits over a leaked draft of his impending majority opinion overturning the high court’s 1973 ruling in Roe vs Wade. The Supreme Court recognizing the unborn have protection under the Constitution, but the right to abortion does not.

US Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Fox News screen capture.

“We hold that Roe… must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Worse still, Alito destroys the linchpin of Roe: The dubious claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman’s “liberty” to “choose,”

“The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘liberty.’”

So, what does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause actually say?

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Did you catch the irony? It clearly says no state shall deprive a person of their life or liberty without due process of law. So, how did the high court justify inventing a right to abortion while denying life and liberty to the unborn?




According to Roe,

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability to meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.”

US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks at pro-choice demonstration outside the high court in 2019. Photo: Senate Democrats via Wikipedia, File:CES RoeRally 052119 (17 of 51) (47858745922).jpg – Wikimedia Commons.

And so, the Fourteenth Amendment was misconstrued to declare the growing human being in the womb as nothing more than irrelevant tissue mass, thus allowing women to destroy innocent life on the high court’s hastily cobbled alter to their “liberty.”

Justice Alito argues,

“This arbitrary line [viability] has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion… Among the characteristics that have been offered as essential attributes of ‘personhood’ are sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, or some combination thereof. By this logic, it would be an open question whether even born individuals, including young children or those afflicted with certain developmental or medical conditions, merit protection as ‘persons.’ But even if one takes the view that ‘personhood’ begins when a certain attribute or combination of attributes is acquired, it is very hard to see why viability should mark the point where ‘personhood’ begins.”


The inferior Dr. Fauci and the coming wave of populist superiority


Alito argues that Roe’s…

“… viability line… makes no sense, and it is telling that other countries almost uniformly eschew such a line. The Court thus asserted raw judicial power to impose, as a matter of constitutional law, a uniform viability rule that allowed the States less freedom to regulate abortion than the majority of western democracies enjoy.”

The Declaration of Independence lists among the crimes of King George III his “establishing therein an Arbitrary government” in his American colonies. Thomas Jefferson’s logical mechanism to end this wrong was the establishment of an independent government ruled, as the Constitution’s preamble later said, by the consent of “We the People.”

Alito’s majority opinion rejects Roe’s arbitrary and highly dismissive definition of viability for the unborn and throws the controversy of when life begins back to the people and their respective state legislatures.

Ultimately, this too cannot stand. There is still the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that “no state shall deprive a person of their life or liberty without due process of law.”

And that applies to the forming person in the womb. Sometime in the future, the question of rights for the unborn will likely work its way back to the US Supreme Court for final adjudication.

Ultrasound scan. Photo: Nevit Dilmen via Wikipedia Commons, File:Ultrasound Scan ND 105.jpg – Wikimedia Commons.

######

Read more from Steve Lopez

About the Author:

Originally from Los Angeles, Steven M. Lopez has been in the news business for more than thirty years. He made his way around the country: Arizona, the Bay Area, and now resides in South Florida. Steven is a senior political staff writer for Communities Digital News and an incredibly talented artist, a cigar and bourbon aficionado.



Follow Steve on:

Twitter
Facebook
Gab
Clouthub

Follow CommDigiNews at 

Twitter

Facebook

Gettr

Parler

Truth (ap) @CommDigiNews

Steven M. Lopez

Originally from Los Angeles, Steven M. Lopez has been in the news business for more than thirty years. He made his way around the country: Arizona, the Bay Area and now resides in South Florida.