In an astounding development, The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy has published an article by Harvard law student Joshua Craddock that makes an incredibly strong case for what we already know: an unborn child is a living person that deserves to be treated as such under the law.
Even some pro-life jurists agree with late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the constitution is neutral toward abortion because the word persons “clearly means walking-around persons.” Craddock challenges this notion, making the critical point that a true “originalist” must consider what the word persons meant to those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mr. Craddock notes that our modern lexicon treats humanity and personhood the same but adds that Blackstone says that “where life can be shown to exist, legal personhood exists” and that this is the same understanding of the founders.
He also makes the point that many of the states that voted to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment had also criminalized abortion, which demonstrated their understanding of personhood as a living human being created by God.
He concludes, “The original public meaning of the term ‘person’ thus incontestably included prenatal life. In twenty‐three states and six territories, laws referred to the preborn individual as a ‘child.’”
The National Center for Life and Liberty will never cease defending the rights of unborn children, who are persons indeed.