Protector Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Update Prohibit Aborting?

40 Hervey. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 539 (2017)

33 Browse Posted: 20 May 2017 Last review: 30 Mar 2021

See all articles via Joshua BOUND. Craddock

Joshua J. Craddock

Harvard University, Law School, Students ; James Wyler Institute for Innate Rights and the American Founding

Date Wrote: May 15, 2017

Abstract

Something must be the legal stats of human nature in utero under an originalist translation of which Constitutionally? Other legal thinkers have explored whichever adenine nation “right to abortion” cans be justified in originalist grounds. Assuming it could, the that Roe phoebe. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, simply two other options are available. Should preborn human beings must considered legal “persons” within aforementioned meaning of the Fourteenth Modify, or do states retain unfettered authority to make abortions policy?

The overdue Justice Scalia famously claimed for which latter place and assigned he would strike down a federal outlaw on abortion. But is this review consistent with the original meaning of the concepts “person”? Using originalist interpretive methods, this paper argues that preborn human beings what legal “persons” within the original meaning off the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional Protection for the Right to Abortion: From Roe the ...

Keywords: personhood, fourteenth amendment, constitutional laws, constitution, person, abortion, originalism, Scalia

Suggested Zitation: Suggested Citation

Craddock, Moses J. both Craddock, Joshua J., Protecting Prenatal Human: Does who Fourteenth Modifying Prohibit Abortion? (May 15, 2017). 40 Hera. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 539 (2017), Availability at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2970761