Author Topic: Supreme Court declines to hear case on whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights  (Read 339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,681
Supreme Court DECLINES to hear case on whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights - avoiding triggering another culture war months after overturning Roe v. Wade


PUBLISHED: 09:39 EDT, 11 October 2022

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a case that would have forced them to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights after overturning Roe v. Wade in June.

The high court's conservative majority sidestepped the case that would have triggered a new front in the nation's culture wars as they declined to hear an appeal involving a Catholic group and two women from Rhode Island who challenged a 2019 state law in Rhode Island that codified abortion rights.

The two women, pregnant at the time when the case was first filed, sued on behalf of their fetuses together with a Catholic organization against a decision by the Rhode Island supreme court.

The state court left in place a Rhode Island abortion rights law and determined the unborn babies had no legal right to sue because they were not 'persons' protected by the 14th Amendment. 

*  *  *

Correlation does not imply causation

Ideals are peaceful; History is violent

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 360,407
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Supreme Court Rejects Consideration of Constitutional Rights for Unborn Babies

Breccan F. Thies 11 Oct 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday to decide whether unborn babies have constitutional rights.

The high court’s decision to steer clear of the case comes after infamous abortion case Roe v. Wade was overturned and Republican-led states began implementing restrictions on abortion.

In Roe, justices decided that the word “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.

Brought by a Catholic group and two women, the appeal sought to “complete the analysis begun in Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’ Health Organization]” after a lower court ruled that unborn babies lacked legal standing to challenge a Rhode Island abortion law that codified Roe precedent.

Appellants argue that unborn babies are entitled to due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution. The appellants said in their petition to the Supreme Court:

    As this Court held in Dobbs, abortion laws are different from all others. Do unborn human beings, at any gestational age, have any rights under the United States Constitution? Or, has Dobbs relegated all unborn human beings to the status of persona non grata in the eyes of the United States Constitution—below corporations and other fictitious entities?

The two women who sued were pregnant at the onset of the lawsuit and sued on behalf of their unborn children. The appellants said their lawsuit “presents the opportunity for this court to meet that inevitable question head on.”

Rhode Island’s supreme court rejected the claim a month before Roe was overturned, citing Roe‘s determination that unborn babies were not “persons,” saying, “unborn Petitioners, regardless of gestational age, are not entitled to the protections and guarantees of the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution.”

In the Dobbs decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the high court was not taking a position on “if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth.”

Some Republican-led states are working on enacting fetal personhood laws that would give certain legal rights to unborn babies — chief among these rights is that terminating a pregnancy would be considered murder.

Upwards of 12 states have enacted near-total abortion bans since the overturn of Roe.

The case is Doe v. McKee, No. 22-201, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Don't forget 10% for the "Big Guy"
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, that two become a lawfirm & that three or more become a congress." -John Adams

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

-Matthew 6:34

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 37,609
The only argument that truly matters...

And the reason why merely handing the issue back to the states is insufficient.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49,914
  • With my back to the darkness...
By that sense of logic, the court has opened the door to appeal of every dual homicide involving a pregnant women. Without the rights of a human person, the child in the womb has no more rights than a coyote, and by extension, would lose the protection of law against their murder.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis