We don’t need another amendment. We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.
Blood of Tyrants wrote: “We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.”
That’s easy to write but not so easy to enforce. So, you’d make it a federal crime to intentionally terminate a new life for any reason at any time? That’s complete nonsense!
“We don’t need another amendment. We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.”
Fortynine million dead babies might disagree with that. Unfortunately our constitution failed to protect them and they are forever silenced.
FRED also reminded Russert that he voted for a Bill banning anyone transporting an under-aged girl across a state line to have an abortion. Pretty plain and makes it remain a State’s Rights issue! If the NorthEast Libs want to vote in abortion in their little states then let them live with it, but enforce the law about taking a girl across state line to one of those abortion states.
That's what I've always thought!
If the Supreme Court were merely to admit that unborn children are "persons," then the unborn would be due all the protections of the 14th Amendment...
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
There would be no need for an additional amendment to protect the unborn.