It's Time for the Supreme Court to Let States Protect Their Unborn Children

On December 1, I stood outside of the United States Supreme Court 21 weeks pregnant, emceeing a rally in support of Mississippi’s pro-life law at the heart of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The law challenges the court to reconsider Roe v. Wade and its companion cases. During oral arguments inside the Court on December 1, the Mississippi Attorney General defended her state’s “Gestational Age Act,” a law aimed at protecting Mississippi children in utero before the age of “viability.”

This law — and the Supreme Court case it spurred — is especially personal to me as I carry a child inside of me and can feel her moving. At 21 weeks pregnant, I know that my child is fully developed: face, nose, eyelashes, fingernails, brain. Beyond that, she has her own unique set of DNA, distinct from mine and her father’s, and her sex was determined long ago at the moment of her conception. My daughter and all children in the womb deserve protection at every age of development.

But ever since the Supreme Court read an invisible “right” to abortion into the Constitution in 1973, it has been forced to conjure up a stream of arbitrary justifications for why a child in the womb cannot be afforded the same protections as a child or adult outside the womb, including the constantly moving line of so-called “viability,” and has prevented states from protecting their children before the "realistic possibility" that they will survive outside the womb. Mississippi pushed back against the arbitrary standard, which brings us to the Supreme Court this week.

But what does that standard look like in real life? In the nearly 50 years since the seven men on the Supreme Court decided to grant women the so-called “right” to an abortion, the age of prenatal viability has moved from 28 weeks to less than 22 weeks. And with incredible, life-saving advances in medical technology, the age of viability keeps inching earlier and earlier. This summer, Richard Hutchinson was recognized by Guinness World Records as the most premature baby to survive after he was born at 21 weeks, 2 days, weighing less than 12 ounces. Richard's record was quickly replaced the next month by Curtis Means, who was born at 21 weeks, 1 day.

Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Mississippi abortion provider that took the state to task over its decision to protect preborn children from abortion, argues in its Supreme Court brief that "[m]edical consensus and the undisputed facts in this case establish that viability occurs no earlier than 23-24 weeks of pregnancy." In other words, abortionists argue that a state cannot protect the child I'm carrying. They say that I have a "constitutional right" to kill my daughter. That's a horrifying thought, and it is even more disturbing when you consider that my daughter, at 21 weeks, is so incredibly developed that she may actually be able to live outside the womb right now.

On December 1, my child will bear witness to the tragic reality that currently governs our nation’s abortion law. Just on the cusp of prenatal viability, the abortion industry will be inside the Supreme Court fighting for the license to continue killing children like my 21-week-old daughter. But they have utterly failed to make the case for why a child having or not having a “realistic possibility” of surviving renders some children worthy of dying an unspeakably brutal and violent death in abortion. The further irony is that the abortion industry is quibbling over the “realistic possibility” of survival when its sole purpose is to inflict harm so great that a child’s chance of survival is reduced to zero.

We should protect all children, whether inside or outside the womb. The fact that the Supreme Court currently forbids states from protecting children like my own — even though they could potentially live outside the womb like Richard and Curtis have — shows just how critical and timely the Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will be. It’s time to remove the arbitrary viability line.

While my child may be deemed “pre-viable” by many, what we know of her reveals her humanity and her worthiness of the same legal protections enjoyed by all people who have been born. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, we simply did not know much of what really happens during a baby’s growth inside the womb. In 1973, doctors assumed that babies, unborn and newborns alike, could not feel pain. Until the mid-1980s, physicians were operating outside the womb without anesthesia. Doctors routinely operated on babies up to fifteen months old without anesthesia — including such traumatic operations as open heart surgery. Since then, neonatal researchers have discovered that newborns do feel pain, as do babies inside the womb. A 2019 study in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that preborn babies experience pain as early as 12 weeks.

These advances in medical technology have changed the way women and their families experience pregnancy by giving incredible insights into prenatal development. Many of these insights were unimaginable in 1973, when the Court ruled that unborn children are not protected by the Constitution. In 1973, the disposable camera wasn’t even developed. Now you can take home an ultrasound picture of your baby at 6 weeks or earlier. The Walkman hadn’t even hit the market, but now we now know that babies in the womb can hear and respond to music — and doctors even caution about attending extremely loud concerts while pregnant because the music could hurt a baby’s developing ears. DNA fingerprinting wasn’t discovered until 1984. Now we know fingerprints develop in the womb.

As medicine, science, and technology have dramatically increased our knowledge of the preborn child, society has adjusted accordingly: OB/GYNs modify their advice to pregnant patients; education specialists recommend playlists specially designed to enhance prenatal brain development; and maternal-fetal medicine specialists offer new treatments and interventions for children with prenatal diagnoses.

But our laws, on the other hand, have not changed at all. Our laws are stuck in 1973, refusing to protect the lives of people who dance to music, respond to their mother’s voice, and experience pain.

In the years since 1973, we have ironically added many laws to the books to protect animals from harm (including a law from 1973 that protects unborn animals, such as sea turtle eggs in Florida). Yet the Law has maintained its inconsistent view of preborn humans, subjecting them to a discriminatory “viability test,” which forces it to look at unborn babies like mine and say, “We’re sorry, but we can’t protect you.” The Supreme Court has the opportunity to right that wrong this season.

The truth is that our abortion laws are not only wrong; they are unscientific and backwards. In the past, the Supreme Court has overturned precedents that were similarly backward, such as in Brown v. Board of Education, when it overturned an unjust ruling that upheld segregation. The Court’s precedent on abortion is equally flawed and equally ripe for overturning.

The Mississippi state Attorney General has taken a courageous stand for the sake of her state’s law that protects unborn children after fifteen weeks. Obviously, pro-life Americans want to see our laws protect all lives. But the Supreme Court’s current stance of forbidding states to protect children who could survive outside the women is simply untenable, and if the Court takes this chance to clarify and update a muddled, backward law, Americans of all convictions should find cause for rejoicing.

The states “rights” issue sounds like something that was heard in 1861.

And given that the so-called conservative southern states will no doubt restrict, if not out right ban any abortions then what will they legislate next??? No sex until you are 21, no sex until you are married, all brides must be virgins, and you must belong to a specific church, no birth control will be allowed and so on. Yep lets go back to the 18th century...life was so bucolic then.

It strikes me that all of the anti-abortion zealots are always talking about adoption, etc. yet if you ask them if they will adopt a baby themselves they always say someone will. Kinda sounds like they expect someone else to take care of the problem and not them. It’s easy to take a stand if you don’t have any skin in the game and it’s easy to tell other people what they have to do since the impact on their own lives is minimal. It is easy to tell someone else what to do since you don’t have to walk in their shoes.

But hey if you are cool with some 70 year old state legislator telling you how to live your life, what to think, where to worship, etc. then by all means support the states rights argument.

You are correct.
The Supreme Court should NOT give the states jurisdiction over abortion.

Instead, the Supreme Court should do its job. It should 1) follow the Scientific facts and 2) force states to uphold the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

1) What are the relevant Scientific facts?
The Top Embryologists (and any schmuck who has learned high school Biology 101) say this: “Ahem, life begins when the sperm joins the ovum to produce a new complex with distinctive DNA that proceeds to flourish and grow in a continuum”. In simple words....your life, my life, a judge’s life, they all began at fertilization.

Thus, abortion is the deliberate planned killing of an innocent human being. AKA premeditated murder.
That’s the relevant Scientific fact.

2) What does the Law say?
Article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution guarantees to all persons the equal protection of the laws.

That means that anyone who obtains, performs or assists in abortion is to be punished like any other premeditated murderer. (Usually its life in prison no parole.) Anything less is unconstitutional.
That’s what the law says.

Anyone disagree?

You are correct. The Supreme Court should NOT give the states jurisdiction over abortion.

It should do its job, and follow the science and force states to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

1) What does the Science say?
The Top Embryologists (and any schmuck who has learned high school Biology 101) say this: “Ahem, life begins when the sperm joins the ovum to produce a new complex with distinctive DNA that proceeds to flourish and grow in a continuum”. In simple words, your life begins at fertilization. Thus, abortion is the deliberate planned killing of an innocent human being. AKA premeditated murder.
That’s what the Science says.

2) What does the Law say?
Article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution guarantees to all persons the equal protection of the laws.

That means that anyone who obtains, performs or assists in abortion is to punIshed like any other premendited murderer. (Usually its life in prison no parole.) Anything less is unconstitutional.
That’s what the law says.

Anyone disagree?
osctituional rights a YOU ARE CORRECT. THE SUPREME COUT SHOULD NOT GIVE THE STATES AUTHORITY TO

1. Why are you so eager to have babies murdered between conception and birth?

2. Why should it be legal for a baby to be murdered over the objection of a caring parent who is happy to raise their baby?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.