Following the momentous overturning of Roe v. Wade in the summer of last year, the United States Supreme Court decided on Tuesday not to hear a case that would have determined whether or not unborn kids have the right to have constitutional rights.
In 2019, a group called Catholics for Life along with two pregnant women successfully challenged a recently passed law in Rhode Island that established legal protections for abortion. According to Reuters, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not have the appropriate legal standing to pursue the action.
However, following the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgment in June by the justices, the plaintiffs requested that the Supreme Court hear their case.
The petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court should grant the writ in order to finally assess whether prenatal life, at whatever gestational age, has constitutional protection. They said that this should be done considering the entire and complete tradition and history of our Constitution and law upholding personhood for unborn human beings.
The court did not offer any further explanation.
The attorneys for the plaintiff have not responded to the requests for comments that have been made.
During an interview with Reuters, Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Daniel McKee, voiced his contentment with the verdict reached by the judges.
According to a statement released by the governor's office, Governor McKee thinks that we should be extending the availability of reproductive healthcare for women, with McKee determined to utilizing his veto pen to oppose any legislation that would send our state backwards.
In the decision that the court made in June to repeal abortion rights, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court did not take a stance on the question of whether and when unborn life is eligible to any of the privileges guaranteed after birth.
The attorneys for the plaintiff stated that the case presents the chance for this court to face that inescapable question head on. They were alluding to the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America affords a fetus the rights of due process and equal protection. In the landmark case Roe v. Wade, which was heard in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the word 'person' as it is employed in the Amendment does not include the unborn.
The concept of prenatal life, sometimes known as fetal personhood, has been at the center of a heated dispute in recent years between proponents of abortion and those who defend the sanctity of human life. Pro-life advocates say that fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses should be given the same rights as newborns, while proponents of abortion rights argue personhood laws could affect in fertility treatment or subject women to murder charges.
Since the decision was handed down by the court, and over a dozen states have passed legislation that effectively outlaw abortion.
According to The Hill, the state law that was passed in Georgia as a result of the Dobbs ruling permits pregnant women to declare their unborn embryo as a dependent on their tax returns.
Axios reports Legislators in the state of Ohio are also investigating the possibility of passing a bill that would define an individual as a person from the moment of conception onward.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Daily Wire.