She saw a great danger to liberty in laws enacted to protect babies in the womb from external threats (not including abortion) such as drunk drivers and acts of negligence. In her view, it was OK to make such laws to protect the interests of the woman carrying unborn child -- or to protect whatever interest the baby may have retroactively in its fetal existence if it is ever born alive -- but it was not OK to make such laws in the interest of the unborn child himself.
"Holding third parties responsible for the negligent or criminal destruction of fetuses is therefore consistent with, and even enhances, the protection of the pregnant women's interests," she wrote. "Yet the form that this legal recognition often takes creates the potential for future expansion of fetal rights in ways that conflict with women's interests. By sometimes identifying the fetus rather than the woman as the locus of the right when there is no live birth, recent laws have reflected a dangerous conceptual move. The law no longer recognizes the fetus only in those cases where it is necessary to protect the interests of the subsequently born child and her or his parents. Rather, the law has conferred rights upon the fetus qua fetus. Conceptualizing the fetus as an entity with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman has made possible the future creation of fetal rights that could be used against the pregnant woman. In some instances, this potential has already been realized."
Among the examples she cited were laws that would hold a woman accountable for damaging a fetus through the use of alcohol or illegal drugs.
In a 1989 article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Johnsen offered a solution to the dilemma of how the law could protect the mother's right to an undamaged baby -- provided she decided not to abort it -- while not granting the unborn child any independent rights at all. She would simply meld the baby and the mother into one legal person -- in this case, the mother alone, thus completely legally erasing the life of the child.
"The fetus is a physical part of the pregnant woman," she asserted in defiance of biological science. "Rather than creating a constitutional and practical problem by attempting to treat the fetus as a legal entity separate from the pregnant woman of whom it is a physical part, and then asserting interests in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman, the government should continue to recognize a pregnant woman as a single legal entity and help her to further her own strong interest in giving birth to a healthy baby."
But Johnsen can show compassion when she believes it's appropriate. "Do you believe that torture can ever be legally justified under the United States or international law?" Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif., asked at her confirmation hearing.
"No, Senator, I do not," Johnsen said. "Do you believe that waterboarding is torture?" asked Feinstein. "Yes, Senator," Johnsen said. A terrorist, you see, unlike an unborn baby, deserves the full protection of the law as a person in his own right.