I think the states that are declaring the unborn to be a human being with fundamental rights have the right idea. If you read Roe v. Wade, they more or less punt on the idea of whether the unborn is a human being with rights, and go with the "right" to privacy that was established in Griswald over birth control. So, Roe doesn't need to be overturned, per se.
If we can get the courts to focus on declaring the unborn human (right back to fertilization) as a human being (just like it had to declare that blacks were fully humans with rights), then Roe wouldn't need to be overturned in order to give states the right to ban abortion. Once the unborn human being is given the fundamental right to life, that will supersede the "right to privacy", because now there are two beings involved, one of whom was likely come into being with the consent of its parents.
At this point, the unborn will fall under laws that protect all human beings, including murder.
If we can get the courts to focus on declaring the unborn human (right back to fertilization) as a human being (just like it had to declare that blacks were fully humans with rights), then Roe wouldn't need to be overturned in order to give states the right to ban abortion. Once the unborn human being is given the fundamental right to life, that will supersede the "right to privacy", because now there are two beings involved, one of whom was likely come into being with the consent of its parents.
At this point, the unborn will fall under laws that protect all human beings, including murder.
Comment