Just because they can’t talk doesn’t mean they can’t speak for themselves, egg activists say


Imagine losing to this guy. Or gal. It’s a bit too early to tell.

Although we have a general understanding of Dobbs‘ effects, we are still struggling with its meaning. Of course he spilled roe deerbut what about the other case law that depended on the foundation that Dobbs eroded: Brown, Oberefell, Magnet? Of course, SCOTUS has provided a definitive answer to the question, but what does this finality mean when legitimacy is at an all-time low? Part of the post-Dobbs development is an interesting addition to yesterday’s story about the legal implications of assigning personality to the unborn child; two anti-abortion activists with people (?) are suing to determine if young babies…not even seasoned eggs have enough power to sue on their own behalf.

The U.S. Supreme Court should take up issues of fetal personality and prenatal rights, a group of anti-abortion activists said Tuesday, arguing that a years-old ruling in Rhode Island denying the child to be born to sue should be canceled in light of the landmark. Dobbs decision.

Catholics for Life, Inc., Nichole Leigh Rowleyand two unborn children now argue that their latest loss in the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which occurred in May of this year, should be reconsidered because this recent permanent denial was “deeply rooted in roe deer.”

This case was recently dismissed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. However, the authority on which the RI tribunal relied roe deer and Casey be, you know, a valid law or whatever. With those out of the window, it’s hard to deny that clarification on the open question would be helpful. From the petition:

“This Court should grant the writ because, in light of Dobbsthe Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in holding that the petitioners, baby deer and Baby Mary Doe, were categorically not “any person” recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment. the record summarizes. “Absent an explicit textual definition of the words ‘any person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court should grant the writ in order to establish its meaning and scope in relation to abortion laws.”

Whatever your political leanings, you have to admit that the prospect of a class action lawsuit by unborn children against Gerber for altering their latex nipples makes for a hilarious story above the law. Anything to interrupt the flow of Joe Patrice writing about Jonathan Turley.

Anti-abortion activists and 2 unborn children file new Supreme Court petition to ‘clarify’ whether fetuses have standing to sue in US courts [Law and Crime]

Chris Williams became social media manager and associate editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the team, he moonlighted as an underage Memelord™ in the Law School Memes for Edgy Facebook group T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University at St. Louis School of Law. He’s a former boatbuilder who can’t swim, a published author on critical racing theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that sometimes annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.


Comments are closed.