In the April issue of the conservative journal First Things, the esteemed natural law philosopher John Finnis wrote an essay titled “Abortion Is Unconstitutional.” Finnis’ basic argument was that the traditional conservative or originalist stance on abortion and the Supreme Court’s infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision—namely, that the Constitution is “silent” on the matter and that it is properly an issue for states to decide among themselves—is both morally insufficient and legally dubious.
According to Finnis, unborn children are properly understood as “persons” under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and state-level homicide laws, therefore, cannot discriminate by protecting live people but not unborn people. The upshot under this logic is that overturning Roe and its 1992 successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would not merely return abortion regulation to the ambits of the various states, as earlier conservative legal titans such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia long argued. Rather, it would mandate banning the bloody practice nationwide.
Read More
