Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2023
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

NEWSworthy

0 Comment

Abortion and Magical Legal Thinking

10 Feb 2023
Edward Mechmann
abortion law, Dred Scott v. Sandford
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

The pro-abortion bitter-enders in the legal community are continuing to thrash about in search of a magic spell that will resurrect Roe v. Wade. Their latest attempt is the absurd proposition that abortion is guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

That’s right, the Civil War amendment that abolished slavery. As ridiculous as this seems, it’s still worth taking it seriously because it is being  considered by a seriously misguided federal judge. And it also unintentionally reveals some very interesting things about their real positions.

Slavery and Involuntary Servitude

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by the House in April 1864 and by the Senate in January 1865 – while the Civil War was still raging. It was ratified by the necessary two-thirds of the states by December 1865, at which point it became the supreme law of the land. Slavery had already been abolished in the northern states even before this, either by constitution or statute.

The terms of the amendment is worth noting because of its specificity:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

This language was copied, virtually verbatim, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This was originally passed by the Continental Congress before the adoption of the Constitution and is one of the founding documents of our country. It organized government and law in the territories that would eventually become the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. It was reaffirmed in 1789 by the very first Congress elected under the Constitution and signed into law by George Washington.

There is no reasonable doubt about the original meaning of either the Northwest Ordinance or the Thirteenth Amendment. Everyone in 1787, 1789, and 1865 knew that it abolished chattel slavery, under which one person was compelled to the service of her master for life. It also eliminated arrangements like indentured service or peonage, under which a person was legally bound to serve a master for a period of time or until debts are paid off.

Everyone also knew that the amendment had no effect on other kinds of legal obligations of one person to another or to the government. It clearly did not absolve parents of their duty to care for their children, the military draft, jury duty, paying our taxes, mandatory education, or even the duty of children to obey their parents and eat their vegetables.

Any other interpretation of the amendment is purely magical thinking.

Slavery and Abortion?

For years, in anticipation of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some legal thinkers have been trying to come up with new constitutional theories that would permit killing unborn children. This is partly because the purported legal theory of Roe was so weak and tenuous that very few scholars actually defended it.

One of these proposed theories builds on the common pro-abortion argument that says that laws restricting abortion are tantamount to “forced child-bearing”. One of their favorite arguments is the absurd thought experiment where you wake up one day and your circulatory system is attached to a stranger in order to keep him alive.

Unless the mother was raped, pregnancy was the natural consequence of a freely-made decision to have sex. People with normal value systems understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude, as meant by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Everyone also acknowledges that “bodily autonomy” — another principle they invoke like an incantation — has legitimate limits. For example, very few people disagree with a law that bans me from selling any of my body organs or having sex with a child or buying controlled substances. That’s even without taking into account that there’s another human body involved that would love to have the luxury of arguing about autonomy in her dorm room late at night.

The problem is that this “autonomy” theory has no limiting principle. If the law can never compel me to do anything against my will, then society falls apart.

What They’re Really Saying

It’s important to take people at their word, and to take their arguments seriously. But it’s also useful to read between the lines to see what they’re really saying, even if unconsciously.

Freedom for me, servitude for you – It’s funny that pro-abortion advocates never seem to have a problem with compelling me to pay for abortion through my taxes, or forcing doctors to refer for abortions, or requiring employers to cover it in their health insurance.

Who’s the slave? – Nor do pro-abortion advocates have a problem with saying that the unborn child is tantamount to the mother’s property. After all, they’re saying that she can dispose of the unborn child at will, and she can’t be held legally accountable for any act of violence against the child. That’s exactly like the slave laws before the Civil War, which the Thirteenth Amendment swept away.

Abortion really is a form of birth control – Listen carefully to the words they actually say. They usually use the phrase “forced childbirth” or “forced childbearing”. They stay away from “forced pregnancy”, which is usually understood as an egregious human rights violation where a woman is raped in wartime, or used as a breeder for slaves, or forced to marry against her will.

This implicitly concedes that it’s not the pregnancy per se that they abhor. They want to prevent the baby from developing normally and being born – that’s birth control in its purest form.

We’re desperate – Relying on the Thirteenth Amendment to justify abortion is really raising the intellectual white flag. It’s an admission that you have no coherent argument except “the constitution means whatever I want it to”. This has been dressed up in names like “living constitutionalism”. But it’s really not legal reasoning, it’s magical thinking.

The Great Concession – Fetal Personhood

One of the ironies of the pro-abortion Thirteenth Amendment argument is that it actually undermines everything they stand for.

One of the bedrock principles of pro-abortion legal thinking is that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the law. If you’re not a “person”, then you have no rights that born people are bound to respect and that the law is bound to protect.

By the way, that last sentence is a close paraphrase of the Supreme Court’s holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford which excluded African-Americans from the protections of the law. That’s not a coincidence

But here’s the catch. If you’re using the Thirteenth Amendment, and a person is a slave or is in involuntary servitude, then you also have to have a “master”. That’s the person who owns you or who can compel you to work for them.

Note that word I used – “person”. If you’re not a person, you can’t be a “master”, because a non-person has no legal rights. It can’t be the government – they have nothing to do with your pregnancy. Only a person who is in a direct relationship with another person can own a slave.

So if you’re going to compare pregnancy to slavery, then the only one who can be the “master” is the unborn child.

That means that they’re conceding that the unborn child is a “person”. So she does indeed have rights that born people are bound to respect, and that the law is bound to protect.

That’s what we’ve been arguing for, all along. It’s the ultimate goal of our movement. By making this argument, the pro-abortion advocates are admitting that they really believe it too. They’re not willing to say that. But we are.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

This blog is reprinted, with kind permission, from Edward Mechmann’s blog:  Stepping Out of the Boat  (February 7, 2023)

 

134 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Edward Mechmann

Edward Mechmann is an attorney and Director of Public Policy for the Archdiocese of New York.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Wyoming Bans Abortion Pills

22 Mar 2023

Legal Issues on Chemical Abortions

13 Mar 2023

HHS weighs declaring access to abortion a "public health emergency’

08 Mar 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kathryn Jean Lopez Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.