Due Process Rights for the Unborn

Suppose we do elect a pro-life president, he appoints the next Supreme Court justice and the land's highest court overturns the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. What then?  The abortion debate goes back to the states and is decided on a state by state basis? Will America become a land  where only half its unborn citizens have a right to life?

The American Civil War determined that we could not remain a nation half slave and half free and the same could be argued of the right to life. Simply overturning Roe V. Wade won't end the abortion battle, it will only change the landscape of the battlefield. In my view, the key to ending or significantly reducing abortion in America may lie in the Constitution itself. The 14th amendment clearly states that no State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Thus, according to one possible interpretation of the Constitution, NO abortions should be performed in this country without the unborn child having some sort of legal process in which their interests are taken into account. Thus, if the courts were to uphold the due process rights of the unborn, hearings would be required to determine whether the mother's interest in aborting the child outweighs the child's fundamental right to life, potentially reducing the number of abortions performed each year significantly below current statistics.

Such hearings need not require a full court trial, but could be dealt with by a master or appointee of the court, as many other family matters are currently handled.  But the Constitution, if so interpreted, would be clear: no unborn child should have his life terminated without full legal recourse and a duly executed, case by case legal process which weighs the interests of all parties concerned;  a "due process" that was denied when the last 53 million children were put to death in America's abortuaries. 

Ultrasound Logic

     Throughout the country, many states are passing new laws requiring that women seeking an abortion submit to an ultrasound, the rationale being that they should have ALL of the facts before making such a permanent and life altering decision. As a result of seeing their unborn child alive with a beating heart and human form, a significant number of women have second thoughts about destroying it. In my home state of Pennsylvania, similar legislation is under consideration. Of course, pro-abortion advocates are off the wall and proposing all kinds of absurd legislation in retaliation; bills calling for mandatory prostate exams for men with erectile dysfunction to silly legislation that would protect every ovum and sperm cell. 

     As a person who defends the right to life, but who also supports the Constitution, I'm not 100% sure that mandatory ultrasounds are constitutional. Requiring a woman to undergo a medical procedure sounds a lot like forcing every American to purchase health insurance, something I'm hoping the Supreme Court will rule out by June. I suppose it would depend on how such legislation were worded. I certainly believe every woman should have access to an ultrasound if contemplating an abortion but then there's the question of who would be required to pay for it. Since the abortion clinic stands to make a profit on the abortion, I would think they should have to cover expense of the ultrasound. I do support the spirit of this legislation, because I believe that too many women have been wrongfully convinced that the unborn child is an inanimate mass of cells with no rights and no future unless granted one by its mother. They need to see the truth with their own eyes. For that reason, I would support taxpayer funded ultrasounds if need be.

     Of course, this all begs the question as to whether an abortion itself is constitutional. I, for one, believe it is not. I believe abortion on demand violates not only the baby's right to life, it violates his or her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment. More on this subject next time.