Abortion is the subject of a heated debate in America. That should be the case, excluding the “heated” component. United States government operates under a system of checks and balances known as a constitutional republic. People choose their representatives to make policies. Every state in the US is essentially independent, at least that’s the way it was designed to be in the beginning.
States have the legal authority and moral responsibility to pass legislation that has the approval of their citizens. The federal government has meddled in matters that should properly be decided by each individual state far too frequently. One excellent example is Roe v. Wade.
The decision made by the US Supreme Court was wrong. Despite being praised as a “landmark decision,” the decision disregarded fundamental provisions of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court made the right choice when it reversed the judgment.
However, the Roe v. Wade ruling has ignited a heated controversy between conservative pro-life organizations and extreme leftist pro-abortionists. There has been violence. The left frequently uses the phrase “my body, my choice.” Many Republicans respond, “No problem,” because the human inside is not her body.
But what about the choices of the unborn human living inside a pregnant woman’s stomach? Do the unborn have rights? While they have a heartbeat, can feel pain, and spiritually a soul, the left thinks fetuses shouldn’t have rights. Their nothingness is all that matters to the left.
Radical leftists believe abortion should be legal up until the time of birth. They advocate murder. But when do the rights of the unborn kick in? Science says a heartbeat, and therefore life, starts at around six weeks of pregnancy. When then do constitutional rights apply to a living person?
Well, despite rightfully sending the abortion debate back to individual state residents, the SCOTUS doesn’t believe the foundation of American democracy applies to the unborn. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to make a decision about the unborn and constitutional rights.
The Court refused to hear an appeal by Catholics for Life and two Rhode Island mothers. A lower court ruled that fetuses lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a 2019 state law codifying the right to abortion. This was Rhode Island law falls in line with the now overturned Roe v. Wade.
The two women were pregnant when they filed their case. With support from the Catholic group, the two sued on behalf of their unborn babies. The two women later gave birth. At issue is a recent Georgia ruling called “fetal personhood.” This law grants certain legal rights to the unborn.
Pregnant women can now include their unborn children as dependents on tax returns. If the unborn are truly alive, this seems like a rather justifiable law. According to the 2022 law, a taxpayer with an unborn child having a detectable human heartbeat can be claimed as a personal exemption.
Heartbeat legislation in Georgia says one can occur as early as six weeks’ gestation. Since Georgia considers the unborn baby to rightfully be a living person, the mother may claim a $3,000 exemption for each unborn child.
This just seems logical. Many were puzzled by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Rhode Island mother’s case. Are the justices purposefully trying to distance themselves from the debate that overturning Roe v. Wade started?
Are they looking for a higher degree of proof to rule in a manner more consistent with the overturning of Roe v. Wade? It brings us back to the issue of “my body, my choice.” That’s the heart of the left’s argument. So, if it is “my body, my choice,” when do an unborn baby’s inalienable rights kick in?