Decade after decade, SBA Pro-Life America leader Marjorie Dannenfelser insists we pretend that an unborn embryo is really an “unborn human embryo” and therefore an “unborn human” and therefore an “unborn child” and therefore “a child” and therefore “a person” and therefore “a living human person with a fundamental Constitutional right to life”; with Dannenfelser insisting that this unborn embryo—this “Human Baby,” as she now forcefully decrees the mindless microscopic thing—is no different than any other “human” walking down the street or being dunked on by LeBron James.
But simply renaming something and pretending it to be something different doesn’t magically make it something different. Simply reassigning "childbirth" so that it no longer happens at childbirth, but now happens "at the moment of fertillization" doesn't suddenly transform unborn vegetative gestations into bouncing baby boys and girls. And mainstream America is under no obligation to play along with Dannenfelser’s strangely unconstitutional ‘Embryology Evangelism' and "Fetal Personhood." No, the American Right, the American Left, and the American Center all know that we don’t need a doctor, a priest, or a Supreme Court Justice to tell us that there’s a difference between an egg and a chicken, or between an unborn embryo and an actually-born, knowing, living, breathing, spirited human person, as the word “person” is understood in its original Constitutional sense.
The Pro-Life Movement has based the entirety of its Public Relations thesis on a supremely clever 'Fallacy of Equivocation': the fallacious substitution of the noun "Human" (as in, "Human being") with the adjective "human" (as in "human gestation" or "human urine sample with human DNA").
And they gambled their entire $80 Million-per-year budget on the hope that nobody would notice. Until, finally, we did.
Likewise, the corrupt Dobbs legal team (as well as the Alito majority) gambled their entire enterprise on a derivative "Fallacy of Equivocation": the fallacious substitution of the Constitution-instituted system of "Legal Age" (as in, the Legal Age accorded on "all born persons' Birth Certificates") with the supposedly-superseding system of "Gestational Age" (which is supposedly "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman").
But, we are now forced to ask, was the Constitution originally drafted to empower childbirthed, cognitively-capable persons with a bundle of protected moral-political Birthrights? Or was the Constitution drafted to protect cognitively-incapable vegetative gestations with the right to gestate while being of "Gestational Age"?
Plainly, the Constitution has already settled this issue.
The Constitution expressly states that only “persons born” are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a literal-textual denial of rights to the un-born. As these Birthrights were drafted, the Constitution comprehends the unborn as un-equal because unborn; and un-protected because un-equal. Per the Constitution, as drafted by the Framers, and as tested by the doctrine of "strict scrutiny," the terms "born" and "un-born" cannot be thought "equal," and therefore cannot be granted "Equal Protection" as defined under the circumstances of the 14th Amendment.
Accordingly, the revered Justice Scalia shocked the Pro-Life sect in 2008 when, on national television, he said “The constitution says that ‘persons’ … clearly means walking-around persons,” and, therefore, we see "Originalist" thought leader Scalia indicating once and for all that the Constitutional definition of “persons” does not include embryos. In 2016, Yale Law grad Hillary Clinton likewise reaffirmed that “the unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights.” Strictly considered as a historical document, the Bible not only confirms the Constitution, but even suggests that the Constitution got its own “Persons Born” definition right out of the Bible, with John 16:21 laying down the law that “When a woman is in labor [childbirth]... when she has given birth to a child... a person has been born into the world." No true scholar can fail to note that the Bible's own “born person” definition intentionally omits any mention of “womb” or “fertilization,” demonstrating the Bible itself, thus, as being against every weirdly-vague embryo-theological claim Dannenfelser has ever made. Clearly, the Bible, like Scalia, explicitly means “walking-around persons,” and thus, not embryos.
As such, to our bigger “question of moral theology,” as Alito puts it, these classic Constitution and Bible definitions outrightly contradict not just Marjorie Dannenfelser’s theologically-false “unborn child/baby in the womb” enterprise, but, writ large, these historically correct and plainly conventional ‘person born only through childbirth’ definitions stand as an outright cancellation of the entire Pro-Life claim, and, just as importantly, these historically-fixed definitions stand as a revelatory exposure of the underlying SBA Pro-Life deception upon which Dannenfelser’s entire “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Legislation” lobby has been built.
And, speaking again of the Pro-Life "Fallacy of Equivocation" con, the sophisticated ruse behind that "Pain-Capable" trope is that it is falsely pitched to Congress as meaning "the embryo-fetus is pain-capable right now, in the womb," when, to the truth of the vegetative matter, that fetus will only become "pain capable once it is actually childbirthed into active, living cognition." That's the "quiet" part which the con-man never says out loud. And behind everybody's back, Marjorie Dannenfelser snickers at victims like Lindsey Graham for not having caught the device.
In accordance with classic and Originalist thought, the Constitution grants rights, duties, and protections only to “persons born”: which means that the un-born, like the un-living, are thereby, logically, without rights or duties. And, by result, the 14th Amendment’s right to life, right to choose, right to reproductive property, all add up to a single textually-warranted Constitutional conclusion:
unborns are un-equal because unborn; and unborns are un-protected because un-equal.
This, in the end, is why abortion prohibitions are unconstitutional.
Abortion is legal, and it is legal right now. This original argument is now being authored and instituted into the Dobbs Overturn effort: a project which has been single-handedly led by legal analyst F Effington Eastman. This case argument, in its totality, sets out to finally prove abortion's Constitutional basis in the "Originalist" terms the High Court itself requested, and as the "more informed perspective" (Chief Justice Roberts's words) which the Jackson Women's Health attorney failed to deliver. As Jackson Attorney Julie Rikelman notably failed to argue, the Constitution’s “Persons Born Constraint” essentially affirms the overarching, self-evident truth: borns have rights, unborns don't. Additionally, the Supreme Court precedent of Wong Kim Ark—the fact that rights are "established by the mere fact of birth"—was also excluded by Rikelman.
But, as Rikelman failed to argue, the "mere lack of birth" is what is what defines the legal fact that the unborn have no "rights" or "interests" for States to "protect." This is why abortion is legal.
As Scalia's own "Expressio Unius" logic sees it:
Expression of rights for "All persons born" is exclusion of rights for "All unborns not-born."
Additionally, the Born Person’s “Explicitly Enumerated Immunity” textually defends all born persons against the claims of all unborns. And most importantly, all of these coextensive factors work together to permanently codify “My Body My Choice” doctrine into Federal law, as it has always already been since the 14th Amendment’s enactment in 1868. "Borns" have the ultimate choice, because "unborns" have no choice to even compete: they are vegetative, mindless, and cognitively incapable.
Even the Pro-Life movement's top scientist, Dr. Condic, confesses that the embryo's fetal kicks take place only through "spinothalamic reflexes," and that these "kick" movements happen despite “the absence of a functioning brain." The underlying, actual scientific fact that the Pro-Life leadership will always fraudulently omit is the indisputable scientific truth that the brain-incapable embryo can only "kick" via the same "spinothalamic" fight-or-flight system which allows a chicken-with-its-head-cut-off to successfully run around. This is why, buried in her Congressional footnotes, Condic's fine print speaks of "decorticated animals." Condic's "decorticated animal" means, precisely, chicken-with-its-head-cut-off. And the hidden presupposition attached to it: the concealed Pro-Life acknowledgment that the human embryo-fetus is the "Gestationally-Aged" equivalent of a brainless, vegetative "life" form.
By virtue the 14th Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause, and by Supreme Court precedent establishing personhood by the legal bright line of childbirth, the "born person” has all the rights, and the embryo-fetus, none. So says the Constitution. And to the many material revelations of this inquiry, Justice Scalia will confirm this, Justice Kavanaugh will confirm this, and the inquiry itself will demonstrate that Justice Alito knew this, but that he nevertheless structured his Dobbs Opinion so that it would conceal these facts, and thus induce all Americans to falsely believe that the Constitution supplies no legal grounds by which to protect abortion. But the Constitution clearly does reject the “Fetal Rights” / "Gestational Rights" claim, thereby protecting abortion. Only "All persons born" have Constitutional Birthrights. And, therefore "All unborns not-born" do not.
Justice Kavanaugh explicitly stated that "The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion.”
And when we actually read the Constitution, we understand that the "unborn," as un-equal, simply have no rights for States to "protect."