To Faithfully Follow Roe: How ‘Roe v. Wade’ Now Protects Human Life

[Chris]

An interesting view on how Roe v Wade will eventually protect the unborn.

To Faithfully Follow Roe: How ‘Roe v. Wade’ Now Protects Human Life

...In 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade recognized a right to abortion, founded on privacy, up to viability. Decades after the decision, fixed abortion rights and Roe v. Wade now seem nearly synonymous. However, the truth is more nuanced. Attentive reading shows conditionality and latent humility in the decision.

Remarkably, the Court conceded that if the fetus is a person under the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no right to obtain an abortion because the right to abortion would be superseded by the person’s right to life. In the words of the Court, “[i]f this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

However, while the Court did not conclude that a fetus is a person under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court inserted a fascinating point, a critical caveat or disclaimer. The Court acknowledged that its opinion was the product of a specific moment in time, dependent on extant factual knowledge and lack of consensus at the time, subject to possible “development.” It stated that, given a lack of “any consensus” then on the question when human life begins, the judiciary “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In a fact- and time-sensitive move, the Court left open the possibility or eventuality that if sufficient consensus about the beginning of human life emerged, the parameters of abortion rights would be required to shift with the consensus to protect agreed-upon human life in the womb. Its conclusion was explicitly contingent on the lack of consensus about human life at the time.

This raises an obvious question. In the nearly fifty years since Roe—a long time in both science and law—has there been any development in the level of agreement or consensus on when human life begins? It turns out, science and law have not been stagnant. Surprising consensus has emerged on this point—human life is understood to begin well before viability. To faithfully follow Roe, we must follow this consensus and protect new human life before viability. The analysis of Roe mandates protection of this agreed-upon human life.

...

[Peter1469]

This facet of Roe, the science as we know it today has been understood since the decision, but rarely commented on. It is certainly chilling for the pro-death cult.

[Chris]

This facet of Roe, the science as we know it today has been understood since the decision, but rarely commented on. It is certainly chilling for the pro-death cult.

What I don't get is that if at the time there was no concensus on when life began well then what did they base their decision on? Seems at best/worst an argument from ignorance on the court's part, iow, political.

[MMC]

One more Conservative on SCOTUS.....brings the end to the matter. So clearly, it doesn't bode well for the left.

[Peter1469]

What I don't get is that if at the time there was no concensus on when life began well then what did they base their decision on? Seems at best/worst an argument from ignorance on the court's part, iow, political.

It was judicial activism. They created their own standard as if they got confused and though they were Congress.

[patrickt]

I live in Mexico. Have for years. Twenty-one years ago a waitress in a restaurant where I often ate asked if I could help her family. Her 16-year old son's 15-year old girlfriend was 5-months pregnant and had a heart condition requiring an abortion. Abortion wasn't legal in Mexico unless the life of the mother was at risk. Both families were poor Indians and they couldn't afford the abortion. The waitress had a letter from the doctor explaining the problem and the necessity of an abortion.

So, I paid. But, here they don't inject saline, kill the fetus, and rip in into small pieces to remove it. They basically do a cesarean. When they finished the abortion they had a healthy four-pound baby girl. The girl, and her doctor, misjudged the point of gestation.

Now, that fetus, that blob of cells, is in nursing school, has a two-year old son, and is doing well.

That experience affects my view of abortion on demand for an unlimited time period. The critical part of Roe vs. Wade wasn't the first trimester mention but removing abortion from a state responsibility and making it federal.