"When is prenatal life entitled to any rights enjoyed after birth?" is the question presented to the Supreme Court when deciding whether or not unborn fetuses are guaranteed the protections of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
In Rhode Island, the Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA) was enacted in 2019 to further ensure the privacy rights that the Supreme Court decided upon in the previous case of Roe v. Wade. This act allows for the unrestricted termination of an unborn fetus in specific scenarios, ultimately protecting the status quo of abortion healthcare in Rhode Island. The RPA was put in place of certain Rhode Island laws that recognized the beginning of human life at the instant of conception, as well as outlawing abortion. These state laws have been in place since the 1800s, so, with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, Rhode Island created the Reproductive Privacy Act to provide women with the rights argued at the Supreme Court level in Roe v. Wade.
A group of petitioners formed from cooperations known as "Catholics for Life and Servants of Christ for Life. These petitioners fought against the enactment of the RPA because they believed it stripped their babies of their "personhood." Personhood, meaning that human life began at the instant of conception, was stripped for not letting these unborn fetuses obtain their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The petitioners also argued that the RPA did not act constitutional with their objective of a "gestational age," meaning when an unborn human is entitled to protections under the due process and equal protection clauses. The RPA was then placed under review for Rhode Island's lack of establishing when an unborn being is entitled to federal guarantees.
Petitioners first argued for the unconstitutionality of the RPA because of the deprivation of legal rights, but also, the fact that the RPA was not recognizing people of faith and their beliefs about unborn fetuses and abortion rights.
Initially, superior courts believed that the unborn persons did not have rights as a person to make this challenge that they felt violated, but the petitioners then appealed to higher courts. Rhode Island's Supreme Court then proceeded with this case, deciding that the unborn fetuses, being argued for by the petitioners, could not be legally cognizable and protected under the United States Constitution. The court refers to the outcomes of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey to further argue their case. The court rejects that "[t]he word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does include the unborn." There is no contextual evidence within the Fourteenth Amendment that neither includes nor excludes unborn human beings specifically. The petitioners tried to appeal this to an even higher court, but this act was denied.
Petitioners argued that the RPA was not neutral both facially and in practice. The fact of neutrality, in this case, seems to lean against religion and more toward individual rights. All individuals do not have and practice the same beliefs, so stating that an unborn fetus does not have the access to federal rights leading to providing access to abortion for all is neutral. There is no question of sincerity here, but there is a question of the substantial burden on individuals in this case. If the Rhode Island laws were still present and the RPA was disbanded, and if a woman was forced to save her fetus and face serious health complications, even death, would this be considered a substantial burden on her individual rights? This turns into a slippery slope of specific religious or personal beliefs versus other religious or personal beliefs.
Do you agree with Rhode Island's Supreme Court decision?
10 comments:
This was really interesting to read. This idea of religion versus individual rights seems to be prevalent in our everyday autonomy. I agree that the unborn child does not constitute protection under the Constitution because it is not a citizen. The constitution only protects citizens of the United States and therefore should protect the potential mother. The petitioners against the act are being discriminatory against non-religious persons and are instructed a substantial burden against the potential mother.
This was a really interesting case to read about, and I agree with the point made by Chase about this law being discriminatory to non-religious individuals. I questioned the point made by petitioners about their beliefs on the start of life being violated, as from my understanding, this is a personal belief and not a cemented religious principle. Another question which this case raised for me was the idea of the burden and if it were to be placed upon the mother or the fetus; how can a solution be neutrally applied here? I found that this case raised more questions for me than anything, but I am interested to see what the court's decision will be!
Great post! I personally would have to agree with Erin and Chase about the law being discriminatory against non-religious individuals. Additionally, I would have to agree that there is a substantial burden placed on the potential mother if her access to abortion is restricted. The realities of abortion being a life saving procedure is what makes me lean this way, for, regardless of religious convictions about whether or not a woman should have a child or abortion having certain stigmas, medical care should come before a religious belief when it comes to the general population. Additionally, I would agree that an unborn child is not a citizen. Just like how a Canadian pregnant woman flying over the US is not having an American child, that is unless she gives birth over the US.
I completely agree that this act is discriminatory to non-religious individuals AND there is a substantial burden placed on the biological mother if she is restricted from having access to an abortion. There are many reasons why people choose to have a child in the first place and there are also many reasons why people who are put in this position, choose to terminate their pregnancy. There is no way, in my personal opinion, that this case can be decided without personal biases coming into play. Ultimately, I do also agree that an unborn child can not be considered a citizen.
There is a substantial burden being placed on nonreligious individuals. If the court does not see an unborn child as a person or citizen, then the purpose of the procedure is to save the mother's life, who is a citizen. I personally believe that unborn children should be considered citizens, but under the facts the court had at the time, they are not. Overall, whether you think abortions are morally ok or not does not matter. Under the law, the unborn child is not considered a citizen, and the mother must have the right to have this procedure if she is in harm.
In the case of a mother that is struggling with her own life, I can see why an abortion would be valuable for a compelling state interest of the mother's health. I do believe that the mother should have to be approved by the doctor for the abortion to prove that there is a health risk. The ideals that the nation is founded on are those by John Locke which frame our Declaration of Independence and then our Constitution which are, "life, liberty, and property". By allowing a mother in critical shape helps promote life, but abortion for a mother without a health risk or another underlying factor (such as rape) does not promote life and a unborn child should have rights.
This was an extremely interesting case to read about, and I agree with the decision that the unborn child does not receive protection under the Constitution because the unborn child is not yet a citizen. Like we see in this case, however, deciding who is protected under the Constitution and who isn’t can be very tricky and can create a slippery slope. I also agree that restricting a mother’s access to abortion is a substantial burden and is one of the main factors that should be taken into consideration when looking at this case, since the mother is a citizen and restricting access to abortions in some scenarios can put the mother’s life at risk. There are a lot of biases that come into play in this case, but ultimately since the unborn child is not yet a citizen and restriction on abortion is a substantial burden for the mother, I believe that the court was right in saying that unborn children are not protected under the Constitution.
I am confused as to the slippery slope aspect here. Just because Reproductive rights are being protected for women under the Rhode Island law, would not mean that women would be forced to terminate their pregnancy. The case must balance what the Christian group views to be a violation of their faith being encoded into law and guaranteeing reproductive rights for all women. However, the law does not require women to terminate their pregnancy, so there is no reason for someone who practices a Christian faith to obtain an abortion. I agree with the courts decision that there is a difference between a person and an unborn fetus, and that this is not what people had intended when writing the 14th Amendment.
I agree with the notion that unborn fetuses are not protected under federal law, since they are not yet citizens. I also question the idea that the RPA was not neutral--nothing about the RPA actually inhibited Catholic individuals from Catholic beliefs, rather it did not allow federal law to be predicated upon on Catholic beliefs. I also agree with the above commenters that granting fetuses constitutionally protected rights places a substantial burden on as well as discriminates against non-religious individuals.
I agree with the courts decision, an unborn fetus does not have constitutional rights because it is not a citizen. i also do not think there is any slippery slope in here, there is no law forcing anyone to get an abortion. If you don't want an abortion don't get one and go on with your day it's not that hard to mind your own life. There is discrimination against non religious groups that differ beliefs with those of the Christian church.
Post a Comment