history repeating and the 14th amendment

Uncategorized Add comments

Saw this in the Christianity Today weblog and found it quite fascinating:

“The United States Supreme Court has held that the unborn are not included within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause. That Court held in Roe v. Wade that the word person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the state’s interest in the life of a fetus before birth, it has never repudiated its holding in Roe that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a fetus. The Legislature may therefore extend wrongful death and survival causes of action only to persons that are born live without violating the federal Equal Protection clause.”
—Texas Supreme Court, that parents of a stillborn child can’t sue a Fort Worth hospital for negligence because their child was not a person. The Houston Chronicle notes that Texas is one of only 10 states that don’t allow wrongful-death claims for stillborn children.

So basically they are saying that preborn babies have no rights which a full grown man was bound to respect. If only there was a Frederick Douglass of fetuses, but I guess that’s what we who were born after 1973 are, freed fetuses blessed by loving parents, or at least the fortunate ones who escaped the tyranny of someone’s ‘choice’ being afflicted on us.

The shadows of Roger Taney and Dred Scott are long indeed. Now the answer to that problem, the 14th amendment, becomes the foundation of refusing important rights, the most important being the right to not be killed.

Comments are closed.