Return to site

The Death Knell has Sounded for Roe v. Wade. Did you hear it?

By Angela Coston-Franulovich, Esq. | Guest Blogger

· Baby Roe,Personhood,Abortion

Baby Roe, an unborn aborted six-week-old child, is a person with constitutional rights.

"Shockingly, the probate court judge granted [Baby Roe's father's] petition, reportedly making [Baby Roe] the first fetus to be granted full legal rights in the United States . . . the [Baby Roe] decision has been hailed as a victory for the anti-abortion camp, infuriating reproductive rights activists across the country." ~ E.J. Dickson, Rolling Stone Magazine

The linchpin of all of the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions, including Roe v. Wade, is the denial of due process for unborn children. When the court sanctioned abortion through its Roe v. Wade decision, it considered only the due process rights of the woman seeking an abortion. The court did not consider any due process rights that may be owed to the unborn child, and this was because the court did not consider the unborn child to be a legal person.

During oral reargument in Roe v. Wade on October 11, 1972, the following exchange occurred:

Justice Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

Sarah R. Weddington: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]

Justice Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.

Sara h R. Weddington: That’s right.

Justice Potter Stewart: If the mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?

Sarah R. Weddington: That’s correct.

Anyone who knows anything about constitutional law knows that being considered a legal person is critical. Only legal persons are owed due process, and due process is the primary legal mechanism by which all other constitutional rights are protected. In failing to recognize personhood for due process purposes in the past, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions that have brought great shame on our country. For example, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court sanctioned slavery through denial of personhood, considering slaves to be property rather than legal persons under the U.S. Constitution.

"The only other time in American history that I recall the U.S. having different legal meanings for the word 'person,' other than when referring to unborn children, is in the context of slavery, and it took this country hundreds of years to realize the outright falsity and immorality of that distinction.​" ~ Brent Helms, Attorney for Baby Roe

Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court’s subsequent abortion decisions carry this same shame forward to our present times. Through the Court’s denial of personhood, and any attendant due process rights, there is no class of people more legally helpless or unprotected in the U.S. than unborn children. Thankfully, however, the Supreme Court will soon be forced to confront this grave injustice head-on. And when it does, there will be an end to abortion on demand in America.

To whom shall we be indebted for this great victory? To an aborted, unborn child named “Baby Roe.” Most people in the U.S. do not yet fully understand the legal significance of the wrongful death lawsuit filed earlier this year in Madison County, Alabama, known simply as the Baby Roe case. If one has read or heard anything about the lawsuit, it was likely a brief news report that framed the case as a disgruntled father suing the mother of his child for having had an abortion. In fact, most mainstream media journalists presuppose that the lawsuit lacks merit and anticipate that it will soon be dismissed and forgotten. They are wrong.

The Baby Roe case, sometimes also referred to as the Alabama personhood case, is actually the single most significant case that has arisen in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

For the first time in our nation’s history, a court has granted leave to sue to the estate of an aborted, unborn child. In simple terms, this means that an Alabama court recognized Baby Roe to be a legal person, with the same legal right to sue through his or her estate as any other deceased person.

After being granted leave to sue, Baby Roe’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against an Alabama abortion clinic and the pharmaceutical company that caused the child’s death. Do not be misled, the true significance of the Baby Roe case has little to do with the father, except that he is owed a tremendous debt of gratitude for acting on behalf of Baby Roe’s estate. Likewise, the case has little to do with the child’s mother, except that the defendants will be forced to assert a woman’s federal right to abortion, thus ensuring a pathway to the Supreme Court for the Baby Roe case.

The true significance and the legal brilliance of the Baby Roe case lies in the fact that no matter what happens with the lawsuit in Alabama’s court system, the Baby Roe case will make its way to the Supreme Court for a decision regarding the personhood of the unborn child. If the case is dismissed, it will make its way to the Supreme Court. If the child’s estate loses on summary judgement, the case will make its way to the Supreme Court. If the child’s estate wins a total victory in Alabama, the case will still make it to the Supreme Court. In fact, if judicial procedure were chess, the Baby Roe case would be the ultimate checkmate.

It would be the ultimate checkmate because the defendants must assert a federal right to abortion as third parties, otherwise they have no defense to the lawsuit. If they have no defense to the lawsuit, the floodgates of litigation will open to other plaintiffs, bankrupting America’s abortion industry. But if they assert the federal right to abortion as a defense, they establish a legal basis for Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal. And Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal means that the Supreme Court will be forced - for the first time - to squarely confront the grave injustice that it has perpetrated on 57 million unborn children through its Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court will confront this injustice head-on for the first time because the Baby Roe case is the first case ever where an unborn child has asserted his or her own rights and interests. What a fearful proposition for an industry that profits from the slaying of the innocent.

And they should be afraid. Very afraid. In fact, if the abortion industry were Goliath, Baby Roe would be David. The body of Christ must never forget what David knew well: that both the battle and the victory belong to the Lord. Therefore let us watch and pray diligently, and witness the greatest of victories that God shall bring forth through the death of this tiny and unwanted child, who will forever be known only as “Baby Roe.”

A guest blogger for Helms Law Group, LLC and former magistrate for District 24 of the Magisterial Region 2 in Virginia, Angela Coston-Franulovich currently works as a staff attorney for Solid Rock Baptist Church and Ministries in Madison Heights, Virginia.

Alabama State Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 (e), requires the following language in all attorney communications: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This blog post is made available by Helms Law Group, LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. This blog post should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.

All Posts
×

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!

OK