Last week, a coalition of 26 pro-life leaders led by Live Action published an article in National Review once again touting what they are trying to establish as the "New North Star" of the Pro-Life Movement: equal protection under the 14th amendment. The article contains brief but good information about why preborn children are due equal protection, but the problem is the conspicuous absence of any definition of equal protection.
Defining terms is crucial because people often mean different things by “equal protection.” For instance, in addition to the article, Live Action also drafted House Resolution 464 which was introduced in Congress earlier this month and is billed as a resolution “Acknowledging that unborn children are legal and constitutional persons who are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.” Bill sponsor Congressman Doug Lamborn called it “the new north star for the pro-life movement,” and its definition of equal protection includes legal self-managed abortion.
As we explained here, rather than providing equal protection, H.Res. 464 prohibits states from providing equal protection to preborn children: “Resolved, That the House of Representatives…acknowledges our constitutional duty and solemn obligation to guarantee the equal protection of the laws to every unborn child within the jurisdictional and geographic reach of the Constitution, which shall not be construed to permit the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
H.Res. 464 purports to be an equal protection resolution but states that the Constitution “shall not be construed to permit the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” If legislation mirroring the sentiments of this resolution were to pass, states would be federally prohibited from abolishing abortion.
If we are to interpret the article by the Congressional legislation that it is bundled up with in the same “north star” project, then we can only assume that the 26 authors are not calling for true equal protection where everyone is prohibited from killing preborn children. Further, multiple signers of the article have publicly opposed prosecuting women for abortion. Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins wrote for Fox News,“we state again emphatically that we oppose prosecuting women for abortion.” She also publicly opposed Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall when he announced in January that women who evade Alabama’s pro-life law by ordering abortion pills online could be prosecuted under child chemical endangerment laws. Following the rebuke of Hawkins and other pro-life leaders, Marshall backed down and self-managed abortion is thus legal in Alabama.
Another signer on the National Review article, Teresa Bukovinac, was a co-signer on the Open Letter to State Lawmakers From America’s Leading Pro-Life Organizations which argued, “Women are victims of abortion…Turning women who have abortions into criminals is not the way.”
Given the resolution and the signers on the article, it appears safe to assume that this “new north star” of equal protection is not really equal protection but the same pro-life compromise that has always been touted by the Pro-Life Movement; the same pro-life compromise that provides mothers blanket immunity in the murder of their children and thus keeps self-managed abortion legal.
Don’t be fooled by pro-life groups claiming to be in favor of “equal protection” or “abolishing abortion.” Unless they mean making it illegal for everyone (including mothers) to murder preborn children, all they are doing is hollowing out those phrases of any real meaning.
