Replies

They did NOT say that the logical step, if the humanity of unborn children were adequately demonstrated, was to overturn state laws that permitted abortion to one degree or other. There was never a hint that the tyrants, had they been forced to acknowledge the humanity of unborn children, would have struck down liberal abortion laws in states like California and New York.

They never do. But if you're familiar with law, you would know that judges always deal with the issues at hand, and with no more. It is quite possible that, had the justices recognized that unborn fetuses are humans, they would have declared those laws invalid. Of course, it is much easier to allow states to make that determination, but that's not what Duncan Hunter is advocating, is he?

The logical result of justices who see sonograms and who affirm the humanity of unborn children, in terms of judicial rulings, would be to rule that one of the necessary premises of Roe was vitiated, and therefore, Roe must be vacated.

Roe can be overturned on many other grounds. I doubt that C.J. Roberts will vacate Roe because he thinks that fetuses are human. And as I said before, I take it as significant that Hunter is not making the same promises that Bush made. Bush never said anything about abortion, except that he would have no litmus test. Hunter does have a litmus test.

That being said, once Roe was overturned, that might be a logical next step for those seeking a ban of abortion, to find some way to bring a case to the Court where the question might be whether or not liberal abortion laws impermissibly infringe on the rights of unborn human beings.

They don't. The Constitution does not afford equal protection to those not born. And it would be a blatant act of judicial activism that would probably result in a constitutional amendment being passed allowing abortion-on-demand. I'm sure you don't want that.

Dear LtdGovt,

You appear to be arguing out of both sides of your keyboard.

On the one hand, you interpret Mr. Hunter's remarks as meaning that he believes that the Court should rule abortions unconstitutional.

In contrast, I showed that he's merely pointing out one that one of the necessary premises of Roe is false.

Thus, by appointing justices who believe the evidence of their eyes, that unborn children are human beings, he will be assured that they will overturn Roe, as one of its necessary premises will have been undone.

But you insist that he's implicitly going beyond that.

Yet, you argue that even should the humanity of unborn children be established, it still wouldn't be constitutional for the Court to ban abortion.

You need to decide which argument you wish to advance, as they are like horses that are going in divergent directions, and if you try to continue to ride both, you will likely lose a leg or something.

"The Constitution does not afford equal protection to those not born."

I know that no one has ever interpreted the Constitution thusly, but if the Court were to determine that the unborn child is, in fact, a human being, I think it isn't difficult to find an interpretation of the Constitution that would generally restrict abortion.

sitetest

The Constitution does not afford equal protection to those not born.

What make you think that? If you say because the child isn't born here (yet), I say if a greasy day laborer from Jalisco is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and gets all sorts of rights and protection, then babies are even more entitled to them.