Perhaps it is time for the United States Supreme Court to recognize and protect humanity from another category of dehumanized individuals, just as it did for blacks and American women there not that long.
Rehumanization must happen for unborn humans, if not for all, at least for those who no longer need their mother’s body to sustain themselves. Certainly, the same Constitution that granted women the fundamental right to abort unborn non-viable children can guarantee the life and freedom of viable humans in utero.
Regardless of whether Congress codifies the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, or expands the bench of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation will likely uphold abortion, especially late abortion. , on the radar of the High Court. In 2016, she said:
“I don’t think the base case, with Roe’s core claiming that women have the right to have an abortion, I don’t think that would change. But I think the question of whether people can have abortions very late, you know how many restrictions can be placed on clinics, I think that will change. “
Early or late abortions
Barrett agrees with most Americans on this subject. The majority support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy during the first few weeks of gestation, but the majority oppose later elective abortion, abortions performed on the viable unborn child for reasons general health. Many states, however, allow post-viability abortions under legally vague and undefined health exceptions, including New York City, Maryland, and Maine.
The number of abortions performed on near-viable unborn children is not infinitesimal. Reports show that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 such abortions occur after 20 weeks per year in the United States. The main known reasons for late abortions do not include fetal abnormalities or risks to the physical life of women. And some studies have shown that live birth is actually safer for women than late abortion.
This is undoubtedly true for the youngest human involved, regardless of the gestational age at the time of termination. Science shows that fetal life is biological human life and that older fetuses are able to live outside the womb, separated from their mother, i.e. viable humans in utero.
Supreme Court candidate:Like Amy Coney Barrett, I am a professional woman criticized for my large Catholic family.
Yes, Roe established a near absolute right for women to abort pre-viable fetuses under the due process clause of the Constitution, but it did not relate to the termination of viable unborn children. Overthrowing Roe would not illegalize any state statute allowing elective abortion after viability, and Roe’s codification would not legalize it.
Rather, Roe allows states to outlaw post-viability abortions, with exceptions for life and health. What constitutes health exceptions is discussed in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. C. Casey, and they are limited. But it’s often easier to hide behind vague shadows than to be frank and honest, especially when it comes to special interests. Perhaps this is why state laws do not clarify the particular health reasons why women are allowed to terminate the lives of their viable fetuses.
Constitutional protection of all life
How could the Supreme Court change American abortion case law regarding very late abortions if the Senate upholds Justice Barrett? The Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional right to life or liberty for an unborn child. A Supreme Court with Barrett on the bench, however, could simply recognize the plain text of the Constitution’s amendments and the evolution of science, as Sen. Kamala Harris asked during recent confirmation hearings in the context of the climate change.
As for the viable unborn child, only the rights to life and liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments could prevent Congress and each state from legislating on their elective destruction.
Barrett says she takes a textual and original approach to constitutional interpretation, much like former judge Antonin Scalia. “So in English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as a text and I understand that it had the meaning it had when people ratified it. Both the text and the original wording intent of the 5th and 14th Amendments support the right to life for an unborn viable human life and possibly even for the pre-viable unborn child.
Some scholars claim that the framers of the Constitution meant that “all living and individual members of the human race were meant to be protected, … in certain basic human rights, including the right to life and to equal protection of the laws” . Pro-life feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green sums up the premise: “Any society that makes mother and child enemies slows suicide.
Appointment of Amy Coney Barrett:Why the Senate is right to move forward with the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett
The deeper question really is whether our constitutional guarantees of life and liberty are inclusive enough to include a most vulnerable minority population in America today – children in the wombs of women able to survive outside the bodies of women. women. In the words of MK Gandhi, “If we are to achieve real peace in the world, we will have to start with children.”
Michele Sterlace is Executive Director of Feminists Choosing Life of New York, and Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans United for Life.