If you wanted to be helpful instead of snippy you could have provided an excerpt.
As I understand it, the context of the 14th Amendment was the systematic mistreatment of ex-slaves by the Democrats. Section 1 reads:
“Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
One could argue that this applies to the unborn. As far as I know, that is a novel position. However, I assume that if it makes any sense at all, someone, somewhere made that argument. I think it's a hard sell. For starters the first sentence mentions “persons born,” which would seem to exclude persons unborn. Secondly, novel arguments are generally hard to sell.
By the way, Vivek said he'd be willing to consider such an argument.
Maybe he’s not ready to take the office. Maybe he needs to study the issues before shooting off his mouth.
According to his words he would veto a late term abortion ban.
He has exposed himself either as a pro abortion candidate or an ignoramus.