Not only does the 14th Amendment NOT recognize any born person's right TO abortion,
But the 14th Amendment actually protects any unborn persons FROM abortion.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
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.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
i copy-pasted all 5 sections above, for maximum transparency and context.
the sections on insurrection, rebellion, etc will become more relevant as time goes on, as related to the Jan 6 hearings, and the deep state's attempts to prevent PDJT from running for office again. so, everyone should bone-up on the entire body of the 14th Amendment, because its all relevant to tomorrow's news.
however for the purpose of this post about abortion, i will only be citing section 1.
Section 1
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.
Depending on which WORDS we choose to emphasize, we can CHANGE the 14th amendment from being the foundation of the PRO-abortion movement,
and turn it into the foundation of the ANTI-abortion movement!
"ALL PERSONS BORN ... are CITIZENS of the USA, and the State"
So let's say we interpret this to mean that once ANY PERSON is BORN in USA,
they automatically become a CITIZEN,
BUT, what is a "CITIZEN" BEFORE they are BORN?
A PERSON!
No State shall ... "CITIZENS"
So here we have language that clearly says CITIZENS, as opposed to PERSONS,
a differentiation that was both deliberate, and relevant.
Nor shall any STATE deprive ANY PERSON of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
We could use this part, but only against "The State",
So make the argument that if THE STATE is financing, or subsidizing ABORTIONS,
Or even licensing and/or regulating abortion providers,
then the State is complicit in depriving AN UNBORN PERSON of their LIFE,
without due process of law.
Nor "DENY" to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction, the EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS.
This last sentence here, is the one that really makes the case!
its beautifully written, almost as if by divine inspiration,
and its just been sitting there all along, waiting for someone to actually READ IT,
and interpret it completely differently...
not sure how SCOTUS in 1973 made 14th amendment into a "right" to abortion...
even the phrase "EQUAL PROTECTION" is kind of weird, to our servile way of thinking.
we don't usually think of "THE LAW" as being there to PROTECT anyone, but rather to OPPRESS everyone.
and so, much like the rest of the US constitution, it just re-emphasizes the important concept about the unique way in which the US constitution limits the government, NOT the people.
so under what circumstance could "THE LAW"... "PROTECT"... a "PERSON"?
is it "against THE LAW" to murder ANY BORN PERSON?
"EQUAL PROTECTION" must mean that it would also be
"against the law" to murder ANY UN-BORN PERSON!
So any State that makes murdering any person illegal,
must also make aborting any person illegal.
The entire Roe V Wade case was manufactured.
Ms Roe, on her deathbed, admitted to being a paid actor, and lying about being raped.
https://rumble.com/v14lhp5-roe-v-wade-a-manufactured-lie.html
The satanists who run this clown world, concocted the entire roe v wade case,
for the sole purpose of DENYING the PROTECTION of THE LAW,
and allowing for, and facilitating for, and being complicit in,
the MASS-MURDER of TEN'S OF MILLIONS of UNBORN PERSONS.
They took OUR US CONSTITUTION, and twisted it around into something VERY EVIL,
and COMPLETELY contrary to both the letter of the law, and to the spirit of the law.
This cannot stand.
If the SCOTUS in 2022 ruled against using the 14th amendment to quazi-legalize the abortion of any person in USA,
then the SCOTUS in 2022 must also rule that the 14th amendment does not allow any state to deny the equal protections of the law, in regard to the abortion of any unborn person.
if it is a CRIME for any COMMON CRIMINAL to HARM or KILL any PREGNANT WOMAN,
and it is also a CRIME for any COMMON CRIMINAL to HARM or KILL any PREGNANT WOMAN'S UN-BORN CHILD-PERSON,
then SURELY it must ALSO be a CRIME for ANY DOCTOR to willfully HARM or KILL any pregnant woman's un-born child-person.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a PERSON acting under color of ANY law to willfully deprive a PERSON of a right or privilege PROTECTED by the Constitution or LAWS of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, CARE PROVIDERS in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any PERSON in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if BODILY INJURY results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if DEATH results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an ATTEMPT TO KILL, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to DEATH.
Abortion is NOT HEALTH CARE.
Abortion is A HATE CRIME.
The caveat that blows this article out of the water is the word “born”. Leftists would state that abortions are pre-birth; this exempt
In would instead argue with the 10th Amendment which states that all rights not given to the Federal Govt by the Constitution are given to the State and the People. There is no Constitutional Right to Abortion; it was fabricated out of whole cloth
All the SCOTUS did was clean up sloppy law; and make abortion a State Rights issue; as it always should have been
Pretty sure you are right Hodar. It clearly says "born" and follows it up with "or naturalized". You can't be naturalized unless you are born.
I don't like it, but that is very clear, and "born" is the operative word. Good try though - no way that gets anywhere.
The "person" angle is interesting but I don't believe the court would define a person as someone that hasn't been born yet. That would likely also touch the "subject to the jurisdiction" piece. How can an unborn baby be subject to the jurisdiction of anything?
Nice idea OP, but I don't see any way SCOTUS would even take a case based on this.
Could you use the verbage in the constitution saying how 3/5 of a "person" could be used in representation and taxation? Obviously this was repealed, but the language exists in defining a "person".
So if a pregnancy term is 9 months (36 weeks), and 3/5 of that time is 21.6 weeks (round up to 22 weeks)....would it be fair to say that after 22 weeks representative rights would exist?