The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
Personhood in the Courts
I. The states have a duty to protect the inalienable right to life for all persons within their boundaries - United States v. Cruikshank
“The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ‘To secure these rights,’ says the Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these ‘unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.’ Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States.” (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875))
Every person’s right to life must be protected by the state regardless of that person’s age, level of dependency, citizenship or even viability. The right to life is stated to be a natural right which is granted by the Creator, and which is therefore unable to be alienated by the laws of the state. The fact that this right is to be protected for all persons within the boundaries of the state indicates that this protection is not to be denied to any person for any reason. It is therefore unlawful for a state to have a viability test to determine whether a person’s right to life is worthy of protection. Every person’s right to life is to be protected without exception.
II. The unborn child is stated to be a distinct living organism – Gonzales v. Carhart
“The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties.” (Gonzales v. Carhart , 550 U.S. at 147 (2007) (citing Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 971-72))
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court recognized that the unborn child is a living individual separate and distinct from his mother. In this decision, the Court did not consider the unborn child to be merely a part of the mother’s body.
III. The unborn child is stated to be a human being from the moment of conception – Bonbrest v. Kotz
“From the viewpoint of the civil law and the law of property, a child en ventre sa mere is not only regarded as human being, but as such from the moment of conception—which it is in fact.” (Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138, 140 (1946))
IV. The unborn child is viable from the moment of conception – Wagner v. Finch
“Medically speaking, Donna was viable from the instant of conception onward. An action for damages could have been brought in her behalf for injuries she might have received prior to birth.” (Wagner v. Finch, 413 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1969))
V. The unborn child has a right to the protection of the law – Marbury v. Madison
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. . . . The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 163 (1803))
According to the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, the individuality of the unborn child guarantees him a civil right to claim the protection of the law.
VI. All unborn children must be treated equally under the law – Reed v. Reed
“The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment does, however, deny to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute. A classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” (Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 75-76 (1971))
The state of Alabama does not have the authority to deny the protection of the law to a single class of unborn children. The current law in Alabama grants the full protection of the law to all children except those that are aborted. According to the decision in Reed v. Reed, this exception is a violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
< Previous Chapter Next Chapter > Table of Contents