Here's What a CNN Host Said About Tim Walz That Left Scott Jennings...
What ICE Agents Did After Eating Lunch at a Mexican Restaurant in MN...
Wait, That's How a Local Minnesota Dem Described the Leftist Violence Against ICE
Lawrence O'Donnell's Selective Outrage at Vulgarity, and Abby Phillip Gets Debunked by Abb...
Jacob Frey Cannot Get His Way
INSANITY: Mob of Leftist Rioters Stab and Beat Anti-Islam Activist in Minneapolis
U.S. Strike in Syria Kills Terrorist Linked to Murder of American Soldiers
Florida Man Convicted of $4.5M Scheme to Defraud U.S. Military Fuel Program
Chinese National Pleads Guilty to $27 Million Scam Targeting 2,000 Elderly Victims Nationw...
Orange County Man Arrested for Alleged Instagram Death Threats Against VP JD Vance
Hannity Grills Democrat Shri Thanedar After He Admits Voting Against Deporting Illegal Sex...
$68 Million Medicaid Fraud: Two Plead Guilty Over Brooklyn Adult Day Care Scheme
The Trump Administration Just Announced New Tariffs on Countries Deploying Troops to Green...
Minneapolis Alleged Gang Member, Felon Charged After Allegedly Stealing Rifle From FBI Veh...
JD Vance Just Destroyed This Indiana Republican for Failing to Act on Redistricting
Tipsheet

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