Reasons why Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton should be reversed

While there are some individuals that believe that a woman should still have a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should both be reversed for the following reasons:

  • The United States Supreme Court was inconsistent on its answers to various legal questions relevant to the abortion issue in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • The United States Supreme Court should not refuse to reverse the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, despite the United States Supreme Court deciding that “Roe’s essential holding should be reaffirmed” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, for various reasons, including but not limited to the failure to properly address inconsistencies of both of these decisions, reliance on false statements in both of these cases, misinterpretation of the United States Constitution in both of these cases, and violations of the plaintiff’s rights in the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • The United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior decisions involving federal constitutional law, and as such should reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton if the United States Constitution actually allows the prohibition of abortion in the United States.
  • The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have deprived unborn children of the right to life prior to birth by concluding that unborn children are not legally considered to be persons prior to birth in Roe v. Wade and by allowing unborn children to be killed prior to birth through legal abortion.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children prior to birth, and the intent of our founding fathers can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Abortion was illegal in most states at the time that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The Doe v. Bolton case should never have been heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia or by the United States Supreme Court because the Doe v. Bolton case was filed against the will of the alleged plaintiff, because the attorney representing the plaintiff misrepresented the facts of the plaintiff’s pregnancy, and because the alleged plaintiff was denied the right to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court found various requirements imposed on abortions in Georgia prior to Doe v. Bolton to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton, including the requirement that abortions be performed in accredited hospitals, including the requirement that an abortion be approved by a hospital committee, and including the requirement that an abortion be approved by at least two other doctors.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton on the grounds that these restrictions “unduly infringes on [the] physician’s right to practice [medicine],” procedural restrictions on abortion do not become unconstitutional on the grounds that they restrict a physician’s right to practice medicine because these laws restrict rights that are afforded only to licensed physicians, because the right of a licensed physician to practice medicine is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and because the United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld in later decisions that states can restrict abortion to physicians who are licensed to practice medicine.
  • The United States Supreme Court was wrong in declaring the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton because the rights of a pregnant woman are not always adequately safeguarded by an abortionist, because the procedural restrictions that were declared unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton actually do have a rational connection with a pregnant woman’s needs in some cases, because the United States Supreme Court found abortion to be fundamentally different from other medical procedures in Roe v. Wade and Harris v. McRae, and because the procedural restrictions do protect both pregnant women and unborn children from unnecessary abortions.
  • In the Doe v. Bolton decision, the United States Supreme Court had effectively enabled abortion on demand to be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy by broadly defining health of the mother as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement that abortion be legal “where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” during all nine months of pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade decision, even after viability.
  • The United States Supreme Court was clearly wrong in concluding that the United States Constitution requires that abortion be legal “where necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” because the United States Constitution does not even mention health of the mother or a right to health-preserving measures, because the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” and abortions that are not “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother”, and because the United States Supreme Court based this requirement on the existence of health exceptions in abortion statutes that were declared unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Even though the United States Supreme Court found that a woman has a right to decide “whether to bear or beget a child” and that this right is fundamental in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, there are many constitutionally permissible restrictions of this right, including but not limited to the prohibition of statutory rape, the prohibition of incestuous sexual relations, and restrictions on assisted reproductive procedures such as IVF and artificial insemination.
  • The prohibition of abortion usually does not deprive women who are or who have been pregnant of the ability to decide whether to bear additional children because women are usually able to avoid becoming pregnant again by choosing to completely abstain from sexual relations.
  • Although Justice Harry Blackmun did not agree that a pregnant woman “is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses” in Roe v. Wade and although Chief Justice Warren Burger said that “the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” the Roe v. Wade decision explicitly required abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy and effectively required abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found that laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional on the grounds that these laws violated the privacy of pregnant women, the United States Supreme Court also decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is not absolute and that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is only protected against unwarranted governmental intrusion.
  • The fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy is not sufficient to make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the prohibition of abortion intrudes upon the woman’s right to privacy, because the intrusion into the privacy of a pregnant woman is clearly warranted when it comes to prohibiting abortion since abortion inherently involves the killing of an unborn human being and because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being.
  • Even though every person has a constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, there are many restrictions on an individual’s right to liberty that are constitutionally permissible in the United States.
  • A pregnant woman’s right to liberty does not necessarily make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the liberty of a pregnant woman is restricted by such laws, because the state has legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions, because laws that restrict the liberty of an individual are sometimes constitutionally permissible, and because the right to liberty in the 14th Amendment was not intended to prevent the prohibition of abortion.
  • Although the United States Supreme Court declared laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court did not have sufficient grounds to declare laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional because the constitutional rights that were the basis for a woman’s right to an abortion, including a woman’s right to privacy and liberty, are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government.
Advertisements

U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion

Even though U.S. states and territories are not currently allowed to enact outright bans on abortion because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion because unborn children have a right to life that is universal, fundamental, and unalienable under natural law and because abortion by its very nature involves an attempt to bring about the death of an unborn child. In addition to depriving unborn children of the right to life, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have led to the deaths of over 57 million unborn children, the legalization of abortion for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, an increased willingness to end unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies through a legal abortion, an increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and a decreased respect for human life in the United States. Outlawing abortion in the United States will protect the right to life of unborn children and will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

South Dakota has recently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision and to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Other states should follow South Dakota’s lead and support efforts to either have Roe v. Wade reversed through a United States Supreme Court decision or to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow states and territories to outlaw abortion. If enough states are willing to outlaw abortion, then it would certainly be possible to outlaw abortion in a constitutionally permissible manner in the United States because the United States Supreme Court would face pressure from states to uphold laws that prohibit abortion and also because enough states would probably be willing to ratify an amendment the United States Constitution if such is needed to allow abortion to be outlawed in the United States.

While U.S. Congress and some of the state legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to reduce the abortion rate, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds of fetal pain, there are a few things that are standing in the way of allowing the prohibition of abortion in U.S. states and territories. First, there are some Americans who still believe that abortion should remain legal. Second, some of the state legislatures in the United States are currently unwilling to outlaw abortion. Third, there are currently politicians in United States Congress who are opposed to prohibiting abortion. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court currently has at least four justices that are opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision and a fifth justice that might uphold the Roe v. Wade decision. Fifth, there is strong opposition to laws that prohibit abortion by abortion providers. Furthermore, while most Americans do know that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, many Americans do not fully understand what the ramifications of Roe v. Wade are. Finally, most of the Americans who still support legalized abortion have been misguided as a result of the legalization of abortion in the United States, the Roe v. Wade decision, and pro-abortion politics.

In addition to making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion, pro-life politicians should also support efforts to improve access to pro-life prenatal medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies, to ensure that children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies are properly taken care of, to ensure that taxpayer funding is spent on providing women in crisis pregnancies with pro-life medical care instead of paying for abortions, and that former abortion industry workers can obtain good paying jobs outside of the abortion industry. These additional measures will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and sends the positive message that pro-life politicians actually do care about the women who are in crisis pregnancies and the children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies. There is still hope for making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion if more pro-life politicians who are willing to do much more than simply outlaw abortion are elected in the United States.

Prohibitions on same-sex marriage should not be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court should not force the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage through a Supreme Court decision in which prohibitions on same-sex marriage are declared to be unconstitutional, even if some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court personally believe that same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide. Similar to what happened when abortion-on-demand was legalized nationwide in the United States, forcing the legalization of same-sex marriage through a United States Supreme Court decision will lead to increased support for same-sex marriage in the United States, will lead to an increased willingness to enter into same-sex marriages by homosexual persons who are in a same-sex romantic relationship, and will lead to an increase in the number of children who are raised in same-sex households as a result of the increase in same-sex marriages that would occur if it is legalized nationwide through a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Even though some of the supporters of same-sex marriage claim that a ban on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination against homosexual persons, a prohibition of same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination against homosexual persons because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage apply to all persons and not only to homosexual persons, because non-homosexual persons do not have the right to same-sex marriage in places where it is illegal, because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage are equally applicable to all persons in places where same-sex marriage is illegal without exception, and because homosexual persons who are not legally married have a legal right to contract a marriage with a person of the opposite gender. A ban on same-sex marriage can only constitute discrimination against homosexual persons when two non-homosexual persons of the same gender have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage but two homosexual persons of the same gender do not have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage, but there is no support for this kind of discrimination.

Traditional marriage, or marriage between a man and a woman, has existed in many cultures throughout the world for thousands of years. There are still many individuals throughout the world who still adhere to the traditional belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman who love each other, despite increased support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Western countries. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is materially different from same-sex marriage, and the fact that same-sex marriages are between two persons of the same gender and traditional marriages are always between a man and a woman is not the only material difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Because there are many material differences between traditional marriages and same-sex marriages, the law should uphold the traditional definition of marriage, which is defined as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. In addition, the legalization of same-sex marriage will destroy traditional beliefs that have been deeply upheld by many individuals, many cultures, and many religions throughout the world for thousands of years.

Although the legalization of same-sex marriage will give same-sex couples legal rights that were previously restricted to couples who are in legally recognized traditional marriages, traditional marriage is a substantially different reality from same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are always incapable of having biological children together, but some of the couples who are in traditional marriages are able to have biological children together. Additionally, same-sex marriages by their very nature deprive children who are raised by a same-sex married couple of at least one of their biological parents because children who are raised in same-sex marriages always have a biological parent who is of the gender that is opposite that of the same-sex couple and who is not a party to the same-sex marriage. Furthermore, a traditional marriage is intended to be consummated through an act of marital relations that is open to the conception of a new child, but same-sex marriages are incapable of being properly consummated because same-sex couples are incapable of engaging in sexual acts between each other that can result in the conception of a new child.

There are some homosexual persons in the United States who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, and not every person who suffers from same-sex sexual attraction is willing to enter into a same-sex marriage. In addition, some of the individuals who have previously suffered from same-sex sexual attraction did end up in a successful marriage with a person of the opposite gender. It is often possible for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to overcome such an attraction with appropriate help. The individuals who are supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States are sending the wrong message to those who are suffering from same-sex sexual attraction because the supporters of same-sex marriage fail to take into account that there is hope for those individuals who are suffering from unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

A decision by the United States Supreme Court that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide will have many bad consequences for American society. Like what happened when abortion was legalized nationwide as a result of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, there will be increased support for keeping same-sex marriage legal in the United States following a Supreme Court decision that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, and the support for legalized same-sex marriage in the United States will continue to exist for decades if it is legalized nationwide through a United States Supreme Court decision. In addition, the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage will lessen the incentive for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to obtain help in overcoming such an attraction, will lead to an increased demand for assisted reproductive technologies by same-sex couples, will lead to more children being adopted by same-sex couples, and will deprive more children of at least one of their biological parents. Such a decision will also ultimately lead to the destruction of the traditional family structure in the United States as a result of the increase in the number of same-sex marriages that would exist subsequent to the nationwide legalization through a United States Supreme Court decision as well as an increase of the number of children who would be raised in same-sex households.

Enacting a 20-week-ban on abortion in the United States

A ban on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization should be enacted, and such a ban should not include a rape or incest exception. Although it is perfectly understandable that women who become pregnant as a result of rape should not have to suffer through an unplanned pregnancy that was caused by an act beyond her control, rape and incest exceptions should not exist in laws that prohibit abortions because:

  • Abortion always kills an innocent human being
  • Rape-conceived pregnancies can usually be safely carried to term
  • Cases where rape-conceived pregnancies cannot be carried to term are already addressed through “life of the mother” exceptions and “health of the mother” exceptions to prohibitions on abortion
  • Women who do not want to take care of a rape-conceived children can give up their babies for adoption
  • Some women who become pregnant as a result of rape are actually unwilling to abort a rape-conceived pregnancy

In addition to the above reasons, most of the women who have been raped are aware that they have been raped, and these women can find out whether or not they became pregnant as a result of rape well before the 20th week of pregnancy through an ultrasound because a pregnancy will usually show up on an ultrasound by the 8th week of pregnancy.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization or after a gestational age of 22 weeks. Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In fact, Amillia Taylor was born at a gestational age of 21 weeks and 6 days and did survive being born that early. If Amillia Taylor could survive outside of the womb a day earlier than the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, then other unborn children might be able to be saved if born at 20 weeks post-fertilization.

The United States Supreme Court had established the following trimester framework in the Roe v. Wade case:

  • During the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision and the performance of the abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
  • From approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the state can regulate abortions in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health in order to further its interest in protecting its interest in the health of the mother.
  • For the stage of the pregnancy subsequent to viability, the state can regulate and even go as far as prohibiting abortion, except where “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”, where “health of the mother” is defined as the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother.

Since unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the first part of the Roe trimester framework does not apply to abortions that would be prohibited under this act and the second and third parts of the Roe trimester framework are clearly applicable to abortions that would be prohibited under this proposed act.

Roe v. Wade has enabled legal abortion-on-demand in the United States for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth through the imposition of a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework and through the broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton case. However, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices that were involved in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, including two justices that supported the final decision in both of these cases, did not intend for there to be a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.

Although the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act does provide exceptions for the life of the mother and for “the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including  psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant women,” this proposed legislation does not explicitly include an exception for the health of the mother and this proposed legislation is probably unenforceable due to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, except in the case of partial-birth abortions through the intact dilation and extraction technique. This legislation will probably be challenged in the federal courts if it is enacted because this legislation does not include an explicit, broad “health of the mother” exception, and also because there would be strong opposition to this legislation by the abortion industry.

The United States Supreme Court is likely to hear a case involving a law that prohibits abortions after 20-weeks post-fertilization. The United States Supreme Court should uphold such a law, and the United States Supreme Court should also rule that states can even prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of mother after viability for the following reasons:

  • The bans on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization being proposed by the United States Congress and by some states recognize a governmental interest of protecting unborn children against fetal pain.
  • Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at 20 weeks post-fertilization.
  • Abortions can pose a serious danger to the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother, even in cases where an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • Abortions performed for the purposes of preserving the life or health of the mother are sometimes ineffective in preserving the life or health of the mother.
  • The text of the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and abortions that are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The imposition of a “health of the exception” requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework implies the existence of a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient, even though such a right does not exist within the text of the United States Constitution.
  • Except in the case of abortion, the United States Supreme Court has never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient.
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement for a “health of the mother” exception in the Roe v. Wade decision without citing any basis in the United States Constitution for such a requirement.
  • Even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions had the effect of legalizing abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, including two that supported these decisions, did not intend for these cases to create a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The governmental interests that enable the government to prohibit abortions after viability in cases where abortions are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother still exist in cases where abortions are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should be illegal after viability.

Even if Roe v. Wade is not completely reversed, I predict that the following decisions will be made in future cases before the United States Supreme Court:

  • States will be allowed to regulate any abortion procedure performed after the moment of implantation.
  • After viability, states will be allowed to prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother in some circumstances.
  • States will eventually be allowed to prohibit abortions after viability in all circumstances, even when an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

The right to life and the United States Constitution

Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn human beings from the moment where his or her mother is aware of his or her existence. James Wilson, one of the signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, says the following regarding the right to life of unborn children in his Lectures on Law: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.” Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence says that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In essence, the Declaration of Independence is saying that all human beings are of equal worth and have an unalienable right to life which is granted by the Creator. Because living unborn human beings constitute human life and because unborn human beings have already been created by the Creator, unborn human beings are also of equal worth and do have an unalienable right to human life as human persons who have been born do. Jameson Taylor explains the position of our founding fathers on the right to life of unborn human beings in his essay “The Founding Fathers and the Right to Life”.

The main provision of the United States Constitution that was applied in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton case to arrive at the final ruling in both of these cases is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The primary intentions behind the 14th Amendment was to guarantee the rights to citizenship of persons born or naturalized in the United States, to grant United States citizenship to former slaves, to prevent states from depriving citizens of the Privileges and Immunities granted to citizens under Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, to prevent states from depriving persons of the rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and to ensure that all persons are equally protected under the laws of a state.

Even though the Supreme Court declared Texas’s abortion law unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade case, the 14th Amendment was not intended to prohibit states from prohibiting abortion, nor was the 14th Amendment intended to give pregnant women a constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. In fact, laws which prohibited abortion were on the books in 36 states at the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, and some of these laws were still in effect at the time of the Roe v. Wade case. The clause of the 14th Amendment that was used to declare Texas’s abortion law unconstitutional is the Due Process Clause, which says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The primary intention of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that a state does not take away a person’s right not to be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which had already existed within the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not intend to deprive human beings of any rights that had existed prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and intended to ensure that persons were not deprived of constitutional rights by states. Our founding fathers did not intend for the 5th Amendment to create a right to an abortion, nor did the authors of the 14th Amendment intend to create a right to an abortion.

In the Roe v. Wade case, Sarah Weddington, who was the attorney who represented Jane Roe, argued that a fetus does not have any constitutional rights. She will back up this argument by referring to the Byrn v. New York and Magee Womens Hospital cases. This argument, along with additional examples where unborn human beings are treated differently from born persons, will be used to show that unborn human beings are not persons under the 14th Amendment. Our founding fathers clearly intended for unborn human children to have the right to life prior to birth, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to deprive unborn children of this right to life. The final ruling of the Roe v. Wade case goes against the intention of the United States Constitution since this decision deprives unborn children of a right that they should never have been deprived of, which is the right to life.