0

I'm reading the Wikipedia article on Roe v Wade. It says that:

Texas's lawyers had argued that total bans on abortion were justifiable because "life" began at the moment of conception, and therefore its governmental interest in protecting prenatal life applied to all pregnancies regardless of their stage.[6] The Court said that there was no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, and it rejected Texas's argument that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.[5]

[5] - Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-9574-9.
[6] - Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). Eagan, Minnesota: West Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.

but the page says, quoting the same sources, that:

But [the supreme court] also ruled that this right [to having an abortion] is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.

Setting aside the question of the pregnant woman's health, what is the basis the court found for the state having a valid interest in fostering pre-natal life when the subject/citizen carrying the fetus can legitimately decide not to develop it into a living person by giving birth?

Possibly related question: How low is the bar for "legitimate government interest"?

einpoklum
  • 917
  • 1
  • 6
  • 23

1 Answers1

-1

In order for the government to have a legitimate interest in a thing, it must obtain that interest from and with the consent of the governed. The usual way the government obtains such interests is through either the Constitution, as adopted by the States (thus with consent), or through legislation enacted by the Congressional representatives elected by the people (thus with consent).

There is no such document describing this interest at the federal level, hence according to the tenth amendment, it is "reserved to the States". It then becomes a question of legitimate interest in each state, in accordance with State Constitutions and legislation. There are few, if any, such documents transferring such interest at the State level, so there is now a scramble to create them.

The error in Roe v. Wade was proclaiming that government could possibly have such an interest--when the opposing right is that of the right of an individual person to exist in identifiable form. Pre-natal life is not separately identifiable until it has become separated from and with the consent of the already identifiable person of which it is a part. Had that irrefutable fact been adopted in Roe, the question would remain closed. It will likely be a long time before that error is corrected.

I note that I am "in danger of being blocked from answering", because "some of my past answers have not been well received". Each has been grounded on the governing documents and case law, but may differ in conclusions from various opinions held by others.

Jim Sawyer
  • 5
  • 1