In 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued the deadliest ruling in all of the Court’s history. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Court voted 7-2 in favor of giving women the right to murder their unborn children. The Court’s ruling to legalize abortion was supposedly based upon a mother’s right to privacy established by the Due Process Clause contained in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:
“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; “
The problem was, that the seven members of the Supreme Court at the time (Warren Burger, William O Douglas, William Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell Jr., only thought about the due process of the mothers, not the unborn children. Only Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist voted against legalizing abortion.
Depending on which source you turn to, there have been nearly 60 million unborn children murdered in the United States since that fateful decision. This year alone, there have been about 561,000 murdered kids that were never given the right to take a breath of air or see daylight. The blood of every single murdered child should be on the hands of all seven Justices and everyone who has defended Roe v. Wade ever since.
Surprisingly, famous Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, known for their ultra-liberal views, has published a paper that provides a substantial legal argument that defends the life of unborn children and would make abortion a violation of the 14th Amendment. The paper is authored by Josh Craddock, a J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School. His paper is titled:
In his paper, Craddock opens up with:
“What should the legal status of human beings in utero be under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national ‘right to abortion’ can be justified on originalist grounds. Assuming that it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain authority to make abortion policy?’
In his paper, Craddock provides a great legal argument for declaring that unborn babies are legal persons and as such are protected by the 14th Amendment. Towards the end of his paper, Craddock wrote:
If a state chose not to prosecute the ‘intentional [and] unjustified . . . killing of unborn persons while prosecuting for the killing of all other classes of persons’ then ‘such official inaction denies the child in the womb equal protection of the laws.’ Reitman v. Mulkey determined that statutes permissive of individual discriminatory actions can constitute state action violating the Equal Protection Clause. This reasoning has been relied upon by inferior court decisions requiring life‐saving blood transfusions for fetuses, even against their parents’ religious objections. In one such case, the justices were unanimously ‘satisfied that the unborn child is entitled to the law’s protection’ from inaction that would deprive her of life. Applying the same principle, a state’s consistent and systematic failure to act, ‘depriving some persons within their jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws,’ warrants federal intervention. Given the broad agreement among the states which held that unborn children are ‘persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons’.”
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented about Craddock’s paper, saying:
“So, if a person has the right to free speech… a corporation has the right to free speech, because they’re considered persons under the law.”
Staver also pointed out that all papers published in the Harvard Journal have been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy before being allowed in print. By publishing Craddock’s paper it should be taken as not being legally accurate but it should be taken seriously.
No one is saying whether or not Craddock’s paper could be used for grounds to challenge or review Roe v. Wade, but I would like to point out that none of the Justices on the bench today were part of the 1974 Court and ruling. Yes, you can be assured that at least 3 of the 4 liberal Justices would probably protect Roe v. Wade, but with the addition of Gorsuch to the Court, there may be a good chance the ruling could be overturned and abortion outlawed, as should have always been.