Supreme Court refuses to consider if fetuses have constitutional rights

Loading video...

Khaleda Rahman

By Khaleda Rahman

National Correspondent

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights in light of its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

In the landmark 1973 decision that effectively legalized abortion nationwide, the Supreme Court ruled that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.

But after the court struck down Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in late June, clearing the way for a case that asked the justices to "complete the analysis begun in Dobbs" and decide if fetuses have constitutional rights.

Kamala Harris Says Clarence Thomas Said ‘Quiet Part Out Loud’3 min read

Why Kansas’ Abortion Vote Gives Hope to Black Women4 min read

How Abortion Bans Could Make IVF Even More Expensive7 min read

On Tuesday, the justices decided to steer clear of the issue, turning away an appeal by a Catholic group and two women of a lower court's ruling holding that fetuses lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a Rhode Island abortion law.

The U.S. Supreme Court Building

...

It began as a challenge to the state's Reproductive Privacy Act, signed in 2019 by then-Governor Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, which enshrined abortion protections in the state in line with the Roe precedent.

The plaintiffs sued, arguing that they should have had the opportunity to vote against the abortion law in a referendum.

The two women, who were pregnant when the case was first filed, sought to bring claims on behalf of their unborn children, saying they la erased their legal rights.

But the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in May this year—a month before Roe was overturned—saying there was no right to a referendum on the issue and that none of the adult plaintiffs had been harmed by the law.

Citing Roe, the court found that the unborn children of the previously pregnant plaintiffs were not "persons" who could bring legal claims.

It also found that they had no standing because they were not harmed either, and had been born since the case began.

Taking the issue to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs asked the justices to decide whether the Rhode Island Supreme Court had erred in holding that "unborn Petitioners, regardless of gestational age, are not entitled to the protections and guarantees of the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution."

It also asked the high court to consider if the Rhode Island Supreme Court had erred in holding that the "unborn Petitioners, regardless of gestational age, categorically lacked standing to advance their claims."

"This is a question of law," Diane Messere Magee, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in September.

"No state court or legislature can answer this question. It is solely for the United States Supreme Court to tell us what the phrase 'any person' means in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Read More