Kash Patel Becomes the Focus of Media Analysis They Consistently Get Wrong
How America Has Destroyed Its Democracy, Part Two: The Aristocracy of Merit
Three Congressional Missteps on Healthcare
Today’s Qualifications to Be President of the U.S.
Climate Alarmists Howl After EPA Rescinds ‘Endangerment Finding’
Ukraine's Bureaucrats Are Finishing What China Started
Rising Federal Debt: Why Strategic Planning Matters More Than Ever for High-Net-Worth Fami...
Classroom Political Activism Shifts a Teacher’s Role from Educator to Indoctrinator
As America Celebrates 250, We Must Help Iran Celebrate Another 2,500
Guatemalan Citizen Admits Using Stolen Identity to Obtain Custody of Teen Migrant
Oregon-Based Utility PacifiCorp Settles for $575M Over Six Devastating Wildfires
Armed Man Rammed Substation Near Las Vegas in Apparent Terror Plot Before Committing...
DOJ Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship From Former North Miami Mayor Over Immigration...
DOJ Probes Three Michigan School Districts That Allegedly Teach Gender Ideology
5th Circuit Vacates Ruling That Blocked Louisiana's Mandate to Display 10 Commandments in...
Tipsheet

Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “deprive any 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.” A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons.

Advertisement

Harvard Law student Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a new report for the Harvard Law Journal, concluding that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.

One might look to dictionaries of legal and common usage, the context of the English common law tradition, and cases that attempted to construe the meaning of the text in a manner consistent with original meaning. Using this methodology, it is reasonable to construe the Fourteenth Amendment to include prenatal life. The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species.

In addition to using language to prove his point, Craddock puts his conclusions in context, noting that at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was written, several states called the unborn person a “child” in their anti-abortion laws. Moreover, The Stream notes, in 1859, the American Medical Association mandated that the government must protect the “independent and actual existence of the child before birth.”

Advertisement

Related:

CONSTITUTION

Using this logic, Craddock notes, the Supreme Court justices were flawed in their 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which granted the right to abortion. When he wrote the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun failed to properly assess the word “person” as it was applied in 1868, Craddock argues.

Will the Supreme Court consider the Fourteenth Amendment in future cases dealing with abortion?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement