Life. Liberty. Autonomy. Responsibility. Each of these concepts is represented in the U.S. Constitution. But what do they really mean, and what role should they play in the lives of Americans who live within the Constitution's bounds? Representative Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri has introduced a bill which is sure to spark debate on these core political questions.
Emerson's bill, House Resolution 77, would amend the Constitution in a simple yet stark manner. If H.R. 77 is enacted, the Constitution will contain the following brief text:
SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the word 'person' as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every state of their biological development.
SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother of an unborn person: Provided further, That nothing in this article shall limit the liberty of a mother with respect to the unborn offspring of the mother conceived as a result of rape or incest.
What would the impact of this constitutional amendment be? Let's examine the amendment and its implications a little more closely.
The first point at which we might need a bit of clarification is in Section 1, with the references to the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The 5th Amendment reads, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." To reinforce this point, the 14th Amendment reiterates that "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
When considered along with Section 2, these passages make the impact of this amendment seem crystal clear: no unborn person may be killed (excluding those circumstances in which a child has been conceived due to rape or incest, or when a pregnant woman would die otherwise). Can't we just get to the point and say that this amendment would outlaw abortion?
The answer: yes and no. Certainly it seems that abortion (even to prevent grievous injury to a pregnant woman) would be rendered illegal by this amendment. But there are other implications of the amendment that we might wish to consider.
Some implications are merely odd in their effect on the American political system. For instance, the 14th Amendment also provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state...". If we take Emerson's Amendment seriously, Census enumerators would be required to count every fetus, embryo and zygote every ten years. Exactly how this task might be feasibly completed is unclear, and the problem of how a congressperson might then represent the political wishes of the unborn is also left to be resolved. States like Utah (where 2.1% of women are pregnant at any one time) would gain representation, while states like Maine (where the pregnancy rate is half of Utah's) would lose representation. Whether these outcomes are right or wrong, they certainly are odd.
