Courts

Just Because They Can't Speak Doesn't Mean They Can't Speak For Themselves, Say Egg Activists

This article better not get cited in a note titled, ‘Should Zygotes Have Standing?’

By  
on
Sperm and egg cell microscopic view. 3D rendering

Imagine losing to this guy. Or gal. It is kind of too early to tell.

Though we have a general understanding of Dobbs‘ effects, we are still grappling with its meaning. Sure it overturned Roe, but what of the other caselaw that depended on the foundation that Dobbs eroded: Brown, Obergefell, Loving? Sure, SCOTUS provided a final answer on the matter, but what does that finality mean when legitimacy is at an all-time low? Part of the post-Dobbs development is a neat addendum to yesterday’s story about the legal implications of assigning personhood to the unborn; two anti-abortion activists with people(?) in tow are suing to determine if young babes… not even — seasoned eggs, have enough standing to sue on their own behalf.

The U.S. Supreme Court should take up the issues of fetal personhood and prenatal rights, a group of anti-abortion activists said Tuesday, arguing a years-old Rhode Island ruling denying the unborn standing to sue should be vacated in light of the landmark Dobbs decision.

…

Catholics for Life, Inc., Nichole Leigh Rowley, and two unborn children now argue that their latest loss before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which came in May of this year, should be reconsidered because that recent standing denial was “deeply rooted in Roe.”

This case was recently dismissed by Rhode Island’s Supreme Court. However, the authority RI’s Court rested on Roe and Casey being, you know, valid law or whatever. With those out of the window, it is hard to deny that some clarification on the open question would be helpful. From the petition:

“This Court should grant the writ because, in light of Dobbs, the Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in holding that Petitioners, Baby Roe and Baby Mary Doe, were categorically not ‘any person’ recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment.” the filing sums up. “In the absence of an explicit textual definition of the words ‘any person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court should grant the writ in order to establish its meaning and scope relative to abortion laws.”

Whatever your political leanings are, you’ve gotta admit that the prospect of a class-action suit of unborn children against Gerber for modifying their latex nipples make for a hilarious AbovetheLaw story. Anything to break up the stream of Joe Patrice writing about Jonathan Turley.

Anti-Abortion Activists and 2 Unborn Children File Novel Petition with Supreme Court Seeking to ‘Clarify’ Whether Fetuses Have Standing to Sue in U.S. Courts [Law and Crime]

Sponsored

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,