Serious question about the Constitution...

[momta]

First a caveat: I know that the current SCOTUS doesn't give a shit what the Constitution actually says. I'm just really curious if this argument has been made.

The fourteenth amendment says

"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."

It says "born" not "conceived". Doesn't this negate the five Handmaid justices' argument giving equal protection to the "unborn"?

[Zeitghost]

1. No

The decision wasn't made based on the rights of the fetus, it was based on the constitution not specifically granting an individual the right to privacy or abortion therefore giving the states the power to regulate it.

[Ocelot II]

5. The argument wouldn't be based on Dobbs, which didn't address the issue

of when "life" begins, but on laws in state courts and probably some RW federal proposals which declare that life begins at conception. Get pregnant in Mississippi, have the baby in, say, Sweden, then claim the baby is a US citizen because in Mississippi there's no difference between being conceived and being born (except that nobody who lives in Sweden would want to move to Mississippi). It's a ridiculous argument, of course, but there will be many slippery slopes.

[momta]

6. I see.

So we're back to needing a Constitutional amendment that acknowledges the right to privacy and defines a citizen.

I guess.

[Ocelot II]

2. An interesting argument.

So all you'd have to do is spend a short time in the US or even a US territory, get pregnant while on vacation, return to your home country to have the baby, then claim your baby is a US citizen because in the US there's no legal difference between being born and being conceived. Watch the pretzel logic begin...

[LeftInTX]

3. privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The citizens in this case are born people and would be considered the people who are providing abortions.

Medical procedures are part of medical practice acts. They limit which procedures medical providers can perform.

Abortion is a medical practice performed by a provider. Laws regulating abortion are part of medical practice acts.

[Walleye]

4. What about self induced abortions? Who is the abortion provider there. Who gets prosecuted?

[LeftInTX]

9. It depends on the state

As long as restrictions are followed, self-induced abortion is legal in the state, and there are no criminal penalties for violating Senate Bill 8.https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/04/11/is-self-induced-abortion-illegal-in-texas-4-questions-in-wake-of-a-murder-charge-now-being-dropped/

I believe many of the newer abortion restrictions generally don't target women because of the 4th amendment.

Although we read about cases of women being prosecuted and they make big headlines, they are rare and charges often dropped or verdicts are overturned. They are prosecuted under "feticide laws", but the laws have exemptions for abortion, so the cases are dropped.

[Walleye]

16. Well I'm sure the men have made the rules as complicated as possible. With no respect for the woman

[LeftInTX]

18. This is what the National Review and pro-life groups say:

all major pro-life groups today oppose laws that would apply civil or criminal penalties to women seeking or obtaining abortions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pro-life-groups-oppose-laws-allowing-prosecution-of-women-seeking-abortions

/

[Walleye]

19. The thing is. I don't believe them. They lie

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. Interesting question.

The 14th Amendment is quite clear about citizenship as it relates to "those born or Naturalized in the United States" are then subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they were born.

Is Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) an American, Cuban. or Canadian? He was afterall, born in Canada and left when a young child.

Sorry to get off topic here.

[momta]

8. That's one I've wondered about for years.

My guess is that THIS Supreme Court would rule that he's a citizen and come up with some bullshit logic to defend their position.

If, however, it was Ilhan Omar, I'm sure they would rule the opposite way as "strict constructionists".

[LeftInTX]

11. Ted Cruz is a US citizen. Ilhan Omar is a US citizen.

Born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met

Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2016/1/14/10772734/is-ted-cruz-citizen


John McCain was born in Panama and he ran for president
My brother was born in Japan and my parents had to fill out paperwork when we came back to the US.

Ilhan Omar is a US citizen. (Naturalized)

However, isn't this thread about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment applies to all citizens: Natural born and naturalized.

Eligibility for president is in another part of the constitution.

[momta]

20. I don't disagree with anything here.

And yes, this thread is about what qualifies as a "person" in the Constitution, not eligibility for president.

[Novara]

10. They didn't give "equal protection" to fetuses

They took away a federally-protected woman's right to decide whether to abort a pregnancy and gave the decision to the states. There is nothing about equal protection in the decision. Very obviously not, to the detriment of women.

The ultimate goal is a full federal ban. They're waiting for somebody to challenge the ability to seek abortion care in a "free" state and be denied and then challenge the ability to seek care in a state that allows abortions. Then that will be their excuse to say oops, too messy to have each state do something different, so we'll make a full federal ban.

[LeftInTX]

12. They are planning to get congress to do this

That is their next "big stick"...
They got the Supreme Court and now they want congress to create a national ban.

"Vote R in Congress, ban abortion nationwide" is their next act.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. After reading Dobbs, IMO

any federal law that either legalizes or criminalizes abortion nationwide would be overturned by SCOTUS.

[Walleye]

17. Ha! You got a lot more faith in the Court than I do

I think they’re itching for a nationwide ban and will put up in every session multiple bills

[Novara]

15. I don't think they're going to wait. Especially if ...

... we can keep the Rs from taking over Congress.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Quick answer

is that the Dobbs decision didn't give equal protection to the unborn, so no, this wouldn't negate the decision.

[former9thward]

21. Not at all.

The SC decision said the Constitution was neutral on abortion. It was neither for or against it. It is up to the states to decide what their policy should be.