Posted on 10/19/2022 6:14:03 PM PDT by marshmallow
The nation's highest court is currently unwilling to go beyond overturning Roe.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case challenging a radical Rhode Island abortion law, rejecting an opportunity to build upon the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the U.S. Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights begin in the womb.
In September, Catholics for Life filed a petition with the Supreme Court along with two expectant mothers representing their unborn babies, challenging Rhode Island’s 2019 Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA), which codified the “right to abortion” as defined in Roe and deprived their babies of their personhood by repealing the states pre-Roe abortion ban, which had expressly recognized that “human life commences at the instant of conception,” and an unborn baby is “a person within the language and meaning of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States.”
The petitioners request that the Court recognize the personhood of unborn babies under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” arguing that when the Court restored states’ ability to set abortion policy in June’s Dobbs ruling, it “avoided the question of ‘when prenatal life is entitled to any rights enjoyed after birth,’” and this suit presents an “opportunity for this Court to meet that inevitable question head on.”
But on Tuesday, the Court released an order list confirming that their petition had been denied, without elaboration as to the reasons why or which justices would have heard the case. Four votes would have sufficed to take the case, meaning that only three or fewer justices were willing to consider the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
It’s the correct decision. Constitutional personhood should be done via constitutional amendment, not via a SCOTUS ruling.
Okay. That’s a bunch clearer now. The mothers that were party to the suit representing their own unborns most likely did not have standing. The gestating babies were not harmed by the law actually or prospectively. That is my read. Others?
Then how do they reconcile the double murder charge when a pregnant mother is murdered by an ex-boyfriend? If there is only one “person,” the pregnant woman, how can double murder charges be brought? Because, as we know, they have been in such situations.
Unfortunately, these words are in the Declaration of Independence, and NOT in our Constitution. So, if they want to be consistent, they can't just "find" them in the Constitution. Good call . . . send it back to the states.
I saw a commercial for a law firm wanting to represent people who were exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune, even if the exposure occurred when the person was in utero. I have heard of numerous cases in which the killer of a pregnant woman was also charged with the death of the fetus. How do those kinds of cases not established legal personhood of the unborn?
Its necessary for the court to define this properly.
You can’t have laws on one hand that have the unborn trested as people when they are wanted, and non-people when they are inconvenient.
You can’t count the unborn as a person if a pregnant woman is murdered to get a double murder charge, but not count them as a person if mom hires an abortionist to murder them.
This is inconsistent to the extreme and been brought to us by idiot legislators. It needs to be decided. It cant be both ways. If it is, it means life is only valuable if its wanted. That’s the most hypocritically immoral, subjectively wrong position you can take on this.
So the courts do need to make a consistent legal ruling on this.
That commercial is run non-stop.
I personally don't think you or the USSC could possibly be more wrong, perhaps that's just me.
I err on the side of the dignity, sanctity and beauty of human life at all stages, and it appears others do not.
Well done!
“I saw a commercial for a law firm wanting to represent people who were exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune”
This is just the latest scam on the American taxpayers ...
Getting lawyers involved was big mistake. Lawyers will take 40% and as we see now, the TV ads are raking in the dough for the MSM. All this is OUR money.
I was NOT arguing merits. I was simply stating my interpretation of con law. You can be defending the very highest principles and still not get in the door.
Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Life at Conception Act
Once that is law SCOTUS justices would either have to follow the law or violate it.
There are standards. They have little to do with specific subject matter. They have to do with standing and the ability to obtain the relief sought. Nobody is trying to abort these kids - they are not being “harmed”. There is no relief they can seek for THEMSELVES.
Keep your passion but try to understand how this works.
Of course, but I found it interesting that they are representing people for what happened to them before they were born, when the law for nearly fifty years allowed for 1.5 million people each year to be killed before they could be born.
If a baby can "know" its gender in the womb, then why can't that same baby claim "personhood" in the womb?
I think the person who made the claim about fetal gender identification should be called to testify before a court to establish the baby's standing before the Supreme Court to claim "personhood" regardless of the gender they identify with.
-PJ
If babies are suddenly recognized as actual real people there’s really going to be a problem explaining decades of genocide
Better pass on that one
Isn’t being born a requirement for being a person? That said, I don’t believe the morality of abortion can ever be resolved by law because pro-life people believe “the beginning of human life” occurs at conception and are not interested in the meaning of words. In states where they are the voting majority their viewpoint will prevail as it should.
I believe Congress could and should pass a statute defining legal personhood as beginning at conception. It would iron out a lot of wrinkles.
Nope. No need to explain the errors of the past. Just get it right now and move on.
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.