No.

19-1392

In the
Supreme Court of the United States
THOMAS E. DOBBS, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
V.

JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

SCHOLARS OF JURISPRUDENCE
JOHN M. FINNIS AND ROBERT P. GEORGE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

ROBERT P. GEORGE
Counsel of Record
ROBINSON & MCELWEE
700 VIRGINIA STREET EAST
CHARLESTON, WV 23501
(304) 344-5800
[email protected]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................2
ARGUMENT ...............................................................4
I. Unborn Children are Constitutional
Persons Entitled to Equal Protection of
the Laws ..............................................................4
A. The Common Law Considered
Unborn Children To Be Persons ................5
1. Foundational treatises .......................5
2. English and early state court
cases ....................................................9
3. The unimportance of
quickening .........................................11
a. Before 1849 ...............................12
b. Antebellum
and ratification eras .................18
c. Constancies ...............................20
B. Antebellum Statutes and Post-
Ratification Precedents ............................22
1. State abortion statutes .....................22
 ii

2. Precedent interpreting the

Fourteenth Amendment: The
case of corporations ..........................23
II. Roe and Casey’s Arguments Against Fetal
Personhood Are Unsound .................................27
A. Justice Stevens’ defense in Casey
has absurd implications............................27
B. Roe’s grounds are utterly untenable ........29
III. Recognizing Unborn Children as Persons
Requires No Irregular Remedies or
Unjust Penalties ...............................................31
CONCLUSION ..........................................................33
 iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Barr v. Am. Association of Political
Consultants, Inc,
140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ........................................... 32
Bartemeyer v. Iowa,
85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 129 (1873) ................................ 26
Beale v. Beale,
(1713) 24 Eng. Rep. 353 ........................................ 11
Botsford v. O’Conner,
57 Ill. 72 (1870) ..................................................... 11
Bradwell v. State,
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1872) ................................ 26
City of Boerne v. Flores,
521 U.S. 507 (1997) ............................................... 33
The Civil Rights Cases,
109 U.S. 3 (1883) ................................................... 26
Commonwealth v. Parker,
50 Mass. (9 Metcalf) 263 (1845) ...................... 16, 21
Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36 (2004) ................................................... 2
Dietrich v. Inhabitants of Northampton,
138 Mass. 14 (1884) .............................................. 28
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008) ............................................. 2, 5
Doe v. Clarke,
(1795) 126 Eng. Rep. 617 ...................................... 10
 iv

Doe v. Scott,
321 F. Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1971) ........................ 29
Garza v. Hargan,
874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................... 32
Hall v. Hancock,
32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 255 (1834) .......................passim
Insurance Co v. New Orleans,
13 F.Cas. 67 (C.C.D. La. 1871) ............................. 26
Kelly v. Gregory,
125 N.Y.S. 2d 696 (App. Div. 1953) ...................... 28
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. 742 (2010) ........................................... 2, 25
Millar v. Turner,
(1748) 27 Eng. Rep. 971 ........................................ 11
Mills v. Commonwealth,
13 Pa. 631 (1850) ................................................... 21
Morrow v. Scott,
7 Ga. 535 (1849) .................................................... 11
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining &
Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania,
125 U.S. 181 (1888) ............................................... 26
People v. Liberta,
474 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1984) .................................. 32
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) ............................................... 27
R v. Sims,
(1601) 75 Eng. Rep. 1075 ................................ 31, 32
R v. Wycherley,
(1838) 173 Eng. Rep. 486 ...................................... 13
 v

Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial

Hospital & Ann May Memorial Foundation
v. Anderson,
201 A.2d 537 (N.J. 1964) ....................................... 29
Rex v. Phillips,
(1810) 170 Eng. Rep. 1310 .................................... 12
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) ........................................passim
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific
Railroad Co.,
18 F. 385 (C.C.D. Cal. 1883) ................................. 24
The Slaughter-House Cases,
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872) .................................. 26
State v. Cooper,
22 N.J.L. (2 Zab.) 52 (1849) ............................ 16, 17
State v. Moore,
25 Iowa 128 (1868) ................................................ 21
Steinberg v. Brown,
321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio 1970) ......................... 2
Strauder v. West Virginia,
100 U.S. 303 (1879) ............................................... 26
Thornburgh v. American College of
Obstetricians & Gynecologists,
476 U.S. 747 (1986) ................................................. 2
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,
17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819) ......................... 24, 25
Vacco v. Quill,
521 U.S. 793 (1997) ............................................... 33
Wallis v. Hodson,
(1740) 26 Eng. Rep. 472 .................................. 10, 11
 vi

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 ..................................... 5
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5 ................................... 33
1867 OHIO LAWS 135 ................................................ 23
Act of Apr. 28, 1868, ch. 430,
1868 N.Y. LAWS 856-68 ......................................... 23
Act of Aug. 6, 1868, ch. 1637, no. 13, ch. 3
§§ 10-11, ch. 8, §§ 9-11,
1868 FLA. LAWS 64 ................................................ 23
Act of Feb. 23, 1866,
1866 ALA. PEN. CODE, tit. 1, ch. 5, § 64 ................ 23
Act of Feb. 28, 1867,
1867 ILL. LAWS 89 ................................................. 23
Act of Jan. 19, 1872,
1872 D.C. ACTS 26-29 ............................................ 22
Act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 429, tit. 1, ch. 2, § 8,
30 STAT. 1253-54 (1899) ........................................ 22
Act of May 6, 1869, ch. 631,
1869 N.Y. LAWS 1502-03 ....................................... 23
Act of Nov. 21, 1867, no 57,
1867 VT. ACTS 64-66 .............................................. 23
An Act to Punish Unlawful Attempts to
Cause Abortion, ch. 27,
1845 MASS. ACTS 406 ............................................ 16

OTHER AUTHORITIES
5 TRANSACTIONS OF THE MAINE MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (1869) ............................................... 20
12 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (1859) ............................................... 19
 vii

1867 OHIO SEN. J. APP’X 233 .................................... 23

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) .................. 11
BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF
ENGLAND (Thorne trans., 1968) ...................... 13, 15
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1118
(March 1st, 1866) .................................................... 6
EPHRAIM CHAMBERS, CYCLOPAEDIA (1728) .............. 13
FRANCIS WHARTON, A TREATISE ON THE
CRIMINAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
(1846), (2d ed. 1852), (6th ed. 1868) ............... 13, 20
GERMAIN GRISEZ, ABORTION: THE MYTHS, THE
REALITIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS (1970)................ 30
J.P. BISHOP, COMMENTARIES ON THE
CRIMINAL LAW § 386 (2d ed. 1858) ........................ 20
James S. Witherspoon, Reexamining Roe:
Nineteenth-Century Abortion Statutes and
the Fourteenth Amendment,
17 ST. MARY’S L.J. 29 (1985) ................................. 22
JOHN FINNIS, AQUINAS: MORAL, POLITICAL
AND LEGAL THEORY (1998) .............................. 12, 19
John Finnis, Born and Unborn: Answering
Objections to Constitutional Personhood,
FIRST THINGS (Apr. 9, 2021) .................................. 32
JOHN KEOWN, ABORTION, DOCTORS, AND THE
LAW (1988) ............................................................. 19
JOHN T. NOONAN, THE MORALITY OF
ABORTION (1970) .................................................... 32
JOSEPH W. DELLAPENNA, DISPELLING THE
MYTHS OF ABORTION HISTORY (2006) ........ 21, 30, 31
 viii

Joshua J. Craddock, Protecting Prenatal

Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment
Prohibit Abortion?,
40 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 539 (2017) ........... 29, 30
John D. Gorby, The “Right” to an Abortion,
the Scope of Fourteenth Amendment
Personhood, and the Supreme Court’s Birth
Requirement,
4 S. ILL. U.L.J. 1 (1979) ......................................... 29
Kurt T. Lash, Enforcing the Rights of Due
Process: The Original Relationship between
the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866
Civil Rights Act,
106 GEO. L.J. 1389 (2018) ....................................... 5
MATTHEW HALE, HISTORY OF THE PLEAS OF
THE CROWN (1736) ................................................. 21

Michael S. Paulsen, The Plausibility of

Personhood,
74 OHIO ST. L.J. 13 (2013)..................................... 25
Robert M. Byrn, An American Tragedy: The
Supreme Court on Abortion,
41 FORDHAM L. REV. 807 (1973) ............................ 28
T.R BECK & J.B. BECK, ELEMENTS OF
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE (1823) .................... 18, 19
THOMAS PERCIVAL, MEDICAL ETHICS
(Chauncey D. Leake ed., 1975) (1803) .................. 19
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON
THE LAWS OF ENGLAND ...................................passim

WILLIAM GUY, PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL

JURISPRUDENCE (1st Am. ed. 1845) ...................... 18
 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
John M. Finnis (LL.B., University of Adelaide;
D.Phil., University of Oxford) is Emeritus Professor of
Law and Legal Philosophy in the University of Oxford
and Emeritus Biolchini Family Professor of Law
(1995-2020) at the University of Notre Dame. Robert
P. George (B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D., M.T.S.,
Harvard University; D.Phil., B.C.L., D.C.L. and
D.Litt., University of Oxford) is McCormick Professor
of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. Affiliations
are for identification purposes.
Amici are scholars of jurisprudence and constitu-
tional law and have published on moral and legal
questions regarding abortion, the right to life, legal
personality, and the identity and nature of human
persons from their earliest stages of existence.

1
The parties have consented to this brief’s filing. No counsel
for a party authored any part of this brief, nor has any person or
entity funded this brief’s preparation or submission. The With-
erspoon Institute paid for printing.
 2

INTRODUCTION
Roe v. Wade conceded that if, as Texas there ar-
gued, “the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the case for
a constitutional right to abortion “collapses.”2 But
then the Court hurdled over text and history to an er-
ror-strewn denial that unborn human beings are per-
sons under the Amendment.
Scholarship exposing those errors clears the
ground for a reexamination of Texas’s position in Roe.
While recalling that scholarship, this brief sheds
fresh light on the Amendment’s original public mean-
ing, focusing on common-law history (including pri-
mary material) that previous scholarship has not ad-
equately noted or explored. That history proves pro-
hibitions of elective abortions constitutionally obliga-
tory because unborn children are persons within the
original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The originalist case for holding that unborn chil-
dren are persons is at least as richly substantiated as
the case for the Court’s recent landmark originalist
rulings.3 The sources marshalled in such decisions—

2
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-57 (1973); see also Thorn-
burgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S.
747, 779 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring). Both Roe and Texas
overlooked a three-judge district court’s cogent defense of fetal
constitutional personhood in Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp.
741, 746-47 (N.D. Ohio 1970).
3
See, e.g., McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010);
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
 3

text, treatises, common-law and statutory backdrop,

and early judicial interpretations—here point in a
single direction.
First, the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 it was meant to sustain, codified
equality in the fundamental rights of persons—in-
cluding life and personal security—as these were ex-
pounded in Blackstone’s Commentaries and leading
American treatises. The Commentaries’ exposition
began with a discussion (citing jurists like Coke and
Bracton) of unborn children’s rights as persons across
many bodies of law. Based on these authorities and
landmark English cases, state high courts in the
years before 1868 declared that the unborn human be-
ing throughout pregnancy “is a person” and hence, un-
der “civil and common law,” “to all intents and pur-
poses a child, as much as if born.”4
From the earliest centuries at common law,
(1) abortion at any stage was to “no lawful purpose,”
and functioned as a kind of inchoate felony for felony-
murder purposes, and (2) post-“quickening” abortion
was an indictable offense. By the 1860s, the “quick-
ening” line for indictments had been abandoned be-
cause science had shown that a distinct human being
begins at conception. Obsolete limits to the common
law’s criminal-law protection of the unborn were
swept away by a cascade of statutes in a strong ma-
jority of states leading up to the Amendment’s ratifi-
cation.
In the 1880s, this Court reckoned corporations
“person[s]” under the Equal Protection and Due Pro-

4
Hall v. Hancock, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 255, 257-58 (1834).
 4

cess Clauses. The rationale—a canon of interpreta-

tion first expounded by Chief Justice Marshall and
central to originalism today—itself blocks any ana-
lytic path to excluding the unborn. Indeed, the
originalist case for including the unborn is much
stronger than for corporations.
These textual and historical points show that
among the legally informed public of the time, the
meaning of “any person”—in a provision constitution-
alizing the equal basic rights of persons—plainly en-
compassed unborn human beings.
Second, the only counterarguments by any Jus-
tice—and by the sole, widely discredited writer cited
in Roe—rest on groundless extrapolations and plain
historical falsehoods exposed in scholarship and still
unanswered.
Finally, acknowledging unborn personhood would
be consistent with preserving the nation’s long tradi-
tion of deference toward state policies treating feticide
less severely than other homicides, and guarding
women’s rights to pressing medical interventions that
may cause fetal death. Nor would recognizing the un-
born require unusual judicial remedies. It would re-
store protections deeply planted in law until their up-
rooting in Roe.
ARGUMENT
I. Unborn Children are Constitutional Persons
Entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment bars States from de-
priving “any person of life” “without due process of
law” or denying “to any person” “the equal protection
 5

of the laws.”5 It was adopted against a backdrop of

established common-law principles, legal treatises,
and statutes recognizing unborn children as persons
possessing fundamental rights.6
A. The Common Law Considered Unborn
Children To Be Persons.
Authoritative treatises—including those deployed
specifically to support the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
which the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to codify7—
prominently acknowledged the unborn as persons.
Leading eighteenth-century English cases, later em-
braced in authoritative American precedents decades
before ratification, declared the general principle that
unborn humans are rights-bearing persons from con-
ception. And even before a nationwide wave of statu-
tory prohibitions of abortion in the mid-nineteenth
century, the common law firmly regarded abortion as
an offense from the moment—established by sci-
ence—when there emerged a new individual member
of the human species, a human being.
1. Foundational treatises
Blackstone’s Commentaries expressly taught that
unborn human beings are rights-bearing “persons”
and contributed enormously to the term’s shared legal

5
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added).
6
Cf. Heller, 554 U.S. at 605–16 (interpreting original public
meaning based on ratification-era treatises, antebellum case
law, and Civil War-era legislation).
7
Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to sustain the
Act of 1866. See Kurt T. Lash, Enforcing the Rights of Due Pro-
cess: The Original Relationship between the Fourteenth Amend-
ment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 106 GEO. L.J. 1389, 1391
(2018).
 6

meaning in 1776-91 and 1865-68. Little wonder that

when House Judiciary Committee Chairman James
F. Wilson introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866, he
said:
[T]hese rights … [c]ertainly … must be as
comprehensive as those which belong to
Englishmen…. Blackstone classifies them
… as follows: 1. The right of personal secu-
rity ... great fundamental rights ... the inal-
ienable possession of both Englishmen and
Americans ....8
Wilson was quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries’
first Book, “Of the Rights of Persons,” and its first
Chapter, “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.” Wil-
son observed approvingly that the leading American
treatise on common law—Kent’s Commentaries—ex-
plicitly adopted Blackstone’s categorization of these
rights and description of them as “absolute”—natural
to human beings.9
Blackstone’s analysis, presented as uncontro-
verted and familiar to Wilson’s listeners in Congress,
begins with the “right of personal security”—“a per-
son’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life,
his limbs, his body, his health ....” And Blackstone’s
unfolding of this right of persons opens immediately

8
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1118 (March 1st, 1866).
9
Id. at 1118 col iii; see also 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMEN-
TARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND *123 (“[A]bsolute rights” are
those that “would belong to their persons merely in a state of
nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy[.]”). Blackstone
uses “man” synonymously with “human being.”
 7

after Wilson’s quotation with two paragraphs about

the rights of the unborn:
1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right
inherent by nature in every individual; and
it begins in contemplation of law as soon as
an infant is able to stir in the mother’s
womb.10
This paragraph continues with two sentences about a
shift or ambiguity in criminal law about homicide and
abortion, addressed below.11 Then comes Black-
stone’s second paragraph on unborn children’s rights:
An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s
womb, is supposed in law to be born for many
purposes. It12 is capable of having a legacy,
or a surrender of a copyhold estate, made to
it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and
it is enabled to have an estate limited to its
use, and to take afterwards by such limita-
tion, as if it were then actually born. And in
this point the civil law agrees with ours.o13

10
BLACKSTONE, supra note 9, at *129-30.
11
See infra section I.A.3.
12
Blackstone uses “it” of born children as well as unborn. See
BLACKSTONE, supra note 9, at *301 (“…the child, by reason of its
want of discretion…”).
13
Id. at *129-30 (some footnotes omitted). Footnote o reads,
translated: “Those who are in utero are understood in Civil law
to be in the real world, when it is a matter/question of their ben-
efit” (citing Justinian’s Digest 1.5.26, save the last five words,
which in fact give the gist of 1.5.7). Blackstone has cut two words
to universalize the principle, which had read: “in almost the
whole [toto paene] of the Civil law.”
 8

These paragraphs merit close attention. The first

paragraph’s first sentence concerns:
 the natural right of a living individual pos-
sessing human nature.14 Blackstone here
points to natural realities calling for legal em-
bodiment, including through

a doctrine of English common-law criminal
law—mentioned immediately given the sec-
tion’s topic, the right to life—and what may be
inferred from its treatment of natural realities
“in contemplation of law.”
This last phrase, in Blackstone, signals legal fic-
tions:15 here a legal doctrine’s treatment of the in-
fant’s ability “to stir in the womb”16 as the start of life
for some purpose. By following this first paragraph
on the criminal law’s narrow, defendant-protective
conception of homicide (requiring a “stir[ring],” per-
haps partly for evidentiary reasons) with a paragraph
sketching laws free from artificial constraints (bene-
fitting all unborn humans), Blackstone hints that the
law of personal rights accommodates more than one
“contemplation of law” and may be refined.
“Person” can mean (1) a natural reality signified
in our civilization by Boethius’s definition (“an indi-
vidual substance of a rational nature”), closely corre-

14
See id. at *133 (“This natural life” “cannot legally be dis-
posed of or destroyed by any individual…merely upon their own
authority.”).
15
See, e.g., id. at *270 (“in contemplation of law [the King] is
always present in court”).
16
For the phrase, not then a legal term of art, see infra note 27.
 9

sponding to the sense used in this foundational Com-

mentaries text,17 or (2) a social role signified by the
term’s root meaning mask or assumed identity—in
which sense the law can deem anything a person
(rights-bearing unit).
The Fourteenth Amendment uses “any person”
(without qualifiers) paradigmatically in the first
sense. Yet the Court, since the 1880s,18 has also in-
cluded corporations within “any person” because the
meaning of “person”—in the then-prevailing linguis-
tic-conceptual framework of a legally educated public
brought up on the Commentaries—linked under “the
Law of Persons” both natural and artificial persons.19
Blackstone’s second paragraph on unborn persons’
rights states an even more pervasive common-law
doctrine (construing common law broadly to include
established equitable principles). Also essential to
the legal context and meaning of “any person” in the
1868 Clauses, this doctrine treats the unborn as
rights-bearing persons from conception, in many
fields besides criminal law.
2. English and early state court cases
The leading case of Hall v. Hancock,20 which cited
many English cases, formulated this doctrine thirty-
two years before the debates on the Civil Rights Act

17
See BLACKSTONE, supra note 9, at *130 (citing Coke for “rea-
sonable creature”); id. at *300 (using that phrase for human be-
ing or person).
18
See infra section I.B.2.
19
See, e.g., id. at *123, *467.
20
32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 255 (1834).
 10

of 1866. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

ruled unanimously, per Chief Justice Shaw:
[A] child is to be considered in esse [in being]
at a period commencing nine months previ-
ously to its birth.... [T]he distinction be-
tween a woman being pregnant, and being
quick with child, is applicable mainly if not
exclusively to criminal cases [and] does not
apply to cases of descents, devises and other
gifts; and … a child will be considered in be-
ing, from conception to the time of its birth
in all cases where it will be for the benefit of
such child to be so considered....
Lord Hardwicke says, in Wallis v. Hodson,21
… that a child en ventre sa mere is a person
in rerum naturâ, so that, both by the … civil
and common law, he is to all intents and
purposes a child, as much as if born in the
[testator’s] lifetime....
Doe v. Clarke22 is directly in point[,]
stat[ing] as a fixed principle that, wherever
[it] would be for his benefit, a child en ventre
sa mere shall be considered as absolutely
born.23
This doctrine about the real and legal personhood
of the unborn from conception was enunciated by an
esteemed state chief justice not as a technical rule for
one purpose but as a “fixed principle” “to all intents

21
(1740) 26 Eng. Rep. 472, 2 Atk. 114, 116.
22
(1795) 126 Eng. Rep. 617; 2 H. Blackstone 393.
23
32 Mass. at 257-58.
 11

and purposes”: The unborn is “a child, as much as if

born” and “is a person in rerum naturâ.”24 The Geor-
gia Supreme Court, too, in 1849, expressly applied
that principle, paraphrasing Hardwicke and Shaw.25
Given this general but pointed principle,26 and the
doctrinal architecture of Blackstone’s Commentaries
and thus of American legal education for the century
preceding 1868, the original public meaning of “any
person” in the fundamental-rights-regarding Equal
Protection Clause included living preborn humans.
3. The unimportance of quickening
This conclusion is not undermined by the (limited,
shifting, ultimately transient) relevance at common
law of a child’s being “quick” or “quickened.”

24
See in rerum natura, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed.
2019) (“In the nature of things; in the realm of actuality; in ex-
istence.”).
Hardwicke LC’s parallel decision in Millar v. Turner (1748) 27
Eng. Rep. 971, 1 Vesey Sr 85, shows how these cases correct the
inference, adverse to the unborn, that might be drawn from
Coke’s statement (3 Inst. 50) that children are accounted in re-
rum natura when born alive. Hardwicke cites 3 Inst. 50 to sup-
port his statement that an unborn child “is considered as in
esse… the destruction of him is murder; which shows the laws
[sic] considers such an infant as a living creature.” Millar, 1
Vesey Sr at 86.
25
Morrow v. Scott, 7 Ga. 535, 537 (1849).
26
See Botsford v. O’Conner, 57 Ill. 72, 76 (1870) (holding that
a child en ventre sa mere is a “person” who “must have an oppor-
tunity of being heard, before a court can deprive such person of
his rights”); see also Wallis, 26 Eng. Rep. at 473; Beale v. Beale
(1713) 24 Eng. Rep. 353; 1 P. Wms. 244.
 12

a. Before 1849
Archaic views of human generation held sway
down into the mid-nineteenth century. Such views
mostly supposed that generation involved an un-
formed fleshy mass undergoing successive “for-
mations” (receptions of new forms—vegetable, ani-
mal, etc.) until it was differentiated enough, at
around six weeks, to receive a distinctly human form.
Such animation by a rational soul (anima27) was sup-
posed to make it a human organism. This mispercep-
tion, despite scientific advances, plagued the public
(making “quick” and “quicken”28 ambiguous) until the
mid-nineteenth century. Uncertainty led some courts
to leave reform of common law abortion offenses to
legislatures.29 But this did not affect the legal ques-
tion whether prenatal humans—whenever science
showed they existed—were “person[s]” entitled to life
and security. All along, they have been, as proven by

27
Scientists into the seventeenth century relied on Aristotle,
Historia Animalium 7.3.583b (cited by Roe in its muddled foot-
note 22) for the view that, at approximately 40 days (at least for
males) this mass becomes articulated and the first fetal move-
ment occurs. (So too Blackstone’s “able to stir in the womb.”)
Bracton probably held the view Aquinas contemporaneously ar-
ticulated in Summa contra Gentiles II c. 89, summarized in
JOHN FINNIS, AQUINAS: MORAL, POLITICAL AND LEGAL THEORY
186 (1998): it takes about six weeks for generation to yield a
body sufficiently elaborated (complexionatum) and orga-
nized (organizatum) for animation (receiving the rational,
human soul).
28
Crucial in fomenting if not initiating the confusion was Rex
v. Phillips (1810) 170 Eng. Rep. 1310 (until quickening no evi-
dence of life).
29
Infra note 42.
 13

courts’ and lawmakers’ swift extensions of protection

as general opinion caught up with science.30
The historical legal field is illuminated by distin-
guishing three distinct senses of “quick(en)”:
i. “quick with child” meant pregnant31—
from pregnancy’s start, conception—but was
also sometimes used interchangeably with hav-
ing
ii. “a quick child” (a live child), understood to
emerge when an embryo had developed enough
to receive a rational animating principle (soul)
and so had become a truly human individual.
This term applied—in Bracton’s mid-thir-
teenth century, Coke’s early seventeenth, and
the educated opinion of Blackstone’s time—
from the sixth week of pregnancy.32

30
Infra section I.A.3.b.
31
See R v. Wycherley (1838) 173 Eng. Rep. 486, 8 C. & P. 263
(approved in FRANCIS WHARTON, A TREATISE ON THE CRIMINAL
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 457 (2d ed. 1852)). Even Wycherley,
however, having emphasized the primacy of sense i (as to a cap-
itally-condemned pregnant woman’s right to reprieve during
pregnancy), confuses sense ii with iii. Bracton had stated the
reprieve principle in terms of pregnancy: “If a woman has been
condemned for a crime and is pregnant, execution of sentence
is sometimes deferred after judgment rendered until she has
given birth.” 2 BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ENG-
LAND 429 (Thorne trans., 1968) (emphasis added). The charge to
the jury of matrons came to be expressed as determining
whether the condemned was “quick with child.”
32
See, e.g., Embryo, EPHRAIM CHAMBERS, CYCLOPAEDIA (1728)
(defining “embryo” as the beginning of an “animal” before it has
“received all the Dispositions of Parts necessary to become ani-
mated: which is supposed to happen to a Man on the 42nd day”);
 14

iii. “quickening” (a “quickened child”, etc.), from

the pregnant woman’s perception of a shift in
the uterus’s position or her child’s movements,
sometime between the twelfth and the twenti-
eth week (or not at all), but normally about the
fifteenth or sixteenth week.
With this clarification, we return to the two sen-
tences earlier left aside in the Commentaries’ first
paragraph on the rights of the unborn:
For if a woman is quick with child, and by a
potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb;
or if any one beat her, whereby the child di-
eth in her body, and she is delivered of a
dead child; this, though not murder, was by
the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.o
But at present it is not looked upon in quite
so atrocious a light, though it remains a very
heinous misdemeanor.p

see also, id., Animation (reporting that animation occurs “after

the female that bears [the foetus] is quick, as the common way
of expression is.... The Common opinion is that [animation]
happens about 40 days after conception,” and then adding
significantly, “But Jer. Florentinus, in a Latin treatise, Homo
Dubius, Sive de Baptismo Abortivorum, shows this to be very
precarious”) (emphasis added). Since Florentinus’s cited treatise
argued embryologically that children are fully human persons as
from conception, Chambers is warning readers that the “common
opinion” presupposed by Bracton and Coke may move, under
pressure of evidence, toward recognizing animation/personhood
from conception.
 15

The first sentence’s footnote quotes a line from Brac-

ton in Latin33; the second’s cites a passage in Coke’s
Institutes quoting the same line from Bracton.34 That
line plainly addresses “quick”-ness in the second
sense—a supposedly not-yet-human entity’s change
(by animation) into a human organism. So both Coke
and Blackstone effectively taught that abortions were
common-law heinous misdemeanors from the sixth
week of pregnancy.
Roe contradicts this, launching its discussion of
the common law by citing Coke and Blackstone for its
claim that “[i]t is undisputed that at common law,
abortion performed before ‘quickening’—the first rec-
ognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing
usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy—
was not an indictable offense.”35 False. Again, Coke
and Blackstone cited only Bracton, who was referring
to a living child, animated by a human form or soul,

33
BRACTON, supra note 31, at 341 (l.3c.21) (“If one strikes a
pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abor-
tion, if the foetus is already formed or quickened, and especially
if it is quickened [si puerperium jam formatum fuerit, et maxime
si fuerit animatum], he commits homicide.”). Thorne’s “quick-
ened” is a hazardous translation because of that word’s ambigu-
ity; a clearer translation of animatum is simply “animated” (as
in Twiss’s translation of 1879) or even “ensouled” (anima = soul).
34
BLACKSTONE, supra note 9, at *129-30. The footnote here
reads: “3 Inst. 50.” That passage of Coke’s Institutes, from the
chapter on murder and the section about who can be murdered
(“Reasonable creature, in rerum natura”), sums itself up by quot-
ing in Latin the identical Bracton passage later quoted by Black-
stone.
35
Roe at 113 n.27.
 16

months before the mother would feel “recognizable

movement” around the “16th to the 18th week.”
A leading American case cited by Roe made this
clear. Relying on Bracton-Coke-Blackstone, Chief
Justice Shaw for the Supreme Judicial Court of Mas-
sachusetts held in Commonwealth v. Parker that in-
dictments for abortion must aver that the woman
“was quick with child,” but explicitly declined to hold
that this means she has “felt the child alive and quick
within her.”36
It is no answer to cite State v. Cooper37 in support
of Roe’s generalization that the common-law offense
required perceptible movement. It is true that New
Jersey’s high court, after holding that abortion in-
volves a woman “quick with child,” appeared to take
sides (though it was not in issue) on when this occurs,
answering: “when the embryo gives the first physical
proof of life, no matter when it first received it.”38
Yet Cooper’s framing of the question about “of-
fenses against the person”—as concerning when a hu-
man child is “in esse” (in being)—itself tells in favor
of the principle that a prenatal human individual
warrants protection from its first moment of existence
(a principle Cooper acknowledges the evidence for and

36
50 Mass. (9 Metcalf) 263, 267 (1845). Massachusetts made
the question moot the question a month later with a statute pro-
hibiting any attempt to “procure the miscarriage of a woman.”
An Act to Punish Unlawful Attempts to Cause Abortion, ch. 27,
1845 MASS. ACTS 406.
37
22 N.J.L. (2 Zab.) 52, 54 (1849).
38
Id. at 53-54.
 17

does not rebut).39 And Cooper made clear that it nei-

ther contested that a new human life begins before
the mother perceives movement,40 nor questioned the
other legal protections for children at those early de-
velopmental stages.41 It also explicitly chose to leave
reform to the legislature,42 and New Jersey lawmak-
ers promptly abolished the distinction between pre-
and post-“quickening” and extended prohibition of
this “offense against life” to begin when a woman is
“pregnant with child”—i.e., conception.43

39
The court, quoting Bracton’s line, rightly admitted that it
“at first view might seem to favor a different conclusion.” Then,
assuming precisely what is here in dispute (the sense of “quick
with child”), the court appealed to “the unanimous consent of all
authorities, that that offence [of homicide(!)] could not be com-
mitted unless the child had quickened.” Id. at 54.
40
Id. (“It is not material whether, speaking with physiological
accuracy, life may be said to commence at the moment of quick-
ening, or at the moment of conception.... In contemplation of law,
life commences at the moment of quickening.”).
41
Id. at 56-57.
42
Id. at 58 (finding “legislative enactments” “far better” on
“this ... debatable” matter, when courts must give “the accused”
the benefit of “reasonable doubt”).
43
Against Roe’s faulty history, Cooper itself clearly confirmed
that common law protected the child’s right long before “viabil-
ity,” no later than the perception of movement four or five
months before birth, during which time any “act tending to its
destruction” was an indictable offense, a homicide.
 18

b. Antebellum and ratification eras

The high-water mark of treating quickening (felt
movement) as relevant was the early nineteenth cen-
tury44; by the last third, that line was virtually gone
as it was always destined to be—denounced by the
medico-legal treatises as groundless because for-
mation and animation occur at conception.45 The
same treatises also regarded the old Bracton-Coke-
Blackstone version of “quick with child” (around six
weeks) as equally ridiculous.46 With modern scientific
embryology, that Bracton test was compelled, by its

44
Many of the early reforming state statutes referred to a
woman “quick with child”; many others referred to her being
pregnant with “an unborn quick child.”
45
See, e.g., T.R BECK & J.B. BECK, ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL JU-
RISPRUDENCE 464-66, 468 (1823) (“[N]o other doctrine appears to
be consonant with reason or physiology, but that which admits
the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of concep-
tion.... [W]e must consider those laws which exempt from pun-
ishment the crime of producing abortion at an early period of
gestation, as immoral and unjust.”); WILLIAM GUY, PRINCIPLES
OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE 133-34 (1st Am. ed. 1845) (“[T]he
absurd distinction formerly made between women quick and not
quick is done away with…”).
46
BECK & BECK, supra note 45, at 466 (calling the felt-move-
ment criterion “absurd,” “injurious,” and “wholly unsupported by
argument or evidence,” and going on to denounce as “no less ab-
surd” the “popular belief” and laws, including English and, im-
plicitly, American law, “denying to the foetus any vitality until
after the time of quickening” by “‘consider[ing] life not to com-
mence before the infant is able to stir in its mother’s womb,’” and
declaring (against both understandings of “quick/quickening”)
that non-perception of “motions” is “no proof whatever that such
motions do not exist.”).
 19

own rationale, to recognize personhood from concep-

tion even in the cramped, defendant-solicitous crimi-
nal law.47 Thus, the influential and widely circulated
1803 textbook Medical Ethics explained that “to ex-
tinguish the first spark of life is a crime of the same
nature, both against our maker and society, as to de-
stroy an infant, a child, or a man.”48
What these treatises taught about the unborn—
many describing their destruction as murder or indis-
tinguishable from infanticide49—was vigorously pro-
moted and re-asserted in professional medical associ-
ations, legal education, and state legislatures. The
American Medical Association in 1859 dismissed the
fiction “that the foetus is not alive till after the period
of quickening” and urged correction of any “defects of
our laws, both common and statute, as regards the in-
dependent and actual existence of the child before
birth as a living being.”50

47
Cf. FINNIS, supra note 27, at 186 (explaining why, had Aqui-
nas “known of the extremely elaborate and specifically organized
structure of the sperm and the ovum ... and the [embryo’s] typi-
cal, wholly continuous self-directed growth and development ...
from the moment of insemination of the ovum,” he would have
located “personhood {personalitas: ScG IV c. 44 n.3}” at concep-
tion).
48
THOMAS PERCIVAL, MEDICAL ETHICS 135-36 (Chauncey D.
Leake ed., 1975) (1803).
49
See BECK & BECK, supra note 45; JOHN KEOWN, ABORTION,
DOCTORS, AND THE LAW 23-24, 38-39, 179-80 (1988) (citing trea-
tises).
50
Roe, 410 U.S. at 141 (citing 12 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMER-
ICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 73-78 (1859)).
 20

The leading American treatise on criminal law

mocked the pegging of legal protection to felt quicken-
ing and effectively buried the Bracton-Coke quicken-
ing-as-animation criterion. Wharton’s Criminal Law,
from its first edition in 1846, argued that the criminal
law of offenses against unborn persons should be
aligned with the law of property, guardianship and
equity51 as expounded in cases such as Hall v. Han-
cock, adopting authoritative English equity prece-
dents, which recognized unborn rights at all stages of
development.
Thus, by 1866 Chief Justice Tenney of the Maine
Supreme Court could accurately report that “the
[quickening] distinction ... has been abandoned by ju-
rists in all countries where an enlightened jurispru-
dence exists in practice.”52
c. Constancies
Whatever the confusions about “quick” and “quick-
ening,” the common law indisputably, always and eve-
rywhere, made any attempted abortion a serious in-
dictable offense from at least 15 weeks (give or take

51
WHARTON, supra note 31, at 308 (1846); 2 WHARTON at 653
(6th ed. 1868) (“It has been said that [abortion] is not an indict-
able offence ... unless the mother is quick with child, though such
a distinction, it is submitted, is neither in accordance with med-
ical experience, nor with the principles of the common law. The
civil right of an infant in ventre sa mere are equally respected at
every period of gestation.”); see also J.P. BISHOP, COMMENTARIES
ON THE CRIMINAL LAW § 386 (2d ed. 1858) (re (reviewing cases
and preferring the view that abortion is indictable at common
law without allegation that the mother was quick with child).
52
5 TRANSACTIONS OF THE MAINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 38
(1869).
 21

three). Virtually unanimous legislative,53 profes-

sional, and public support for this part of the nation’s
tradition of ordered liberty, and then for following the
science and removing the temporal limit in the crimi-
nal law’s protection, has been extensively documented
by scholars since Roe and Casey.54 This confirms that
“any person” in the fundamental-rights-regarding
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses includes
all unborn human beings.
So does the fact that, while prevailing (though not
universal55) nineteenth-century common law made
only post-“quickening” abortion indictable, the com-
mon law always regarded pre-quickening abortion as
“an action without lawful purpose,” as Chief Justice
Shaw mildly put it in 1849,56 such that abortions ac-
cidentally causing consenting mothers’ deaths consti-
tuted murders. So even pre-quickening abortion was

53
See infra section I.B.1.
54
See JOSEPH W. DELLAPENNA, DISPELLING THE MYTHS OF
ABORTION HISTORY 213-28 (2006) (concluding “that English law
regarding abortion was fully received in the [American] colonies,
and that the purported ‘common law liberty to abort’ is a myth”);
see also id. 263-451 (for all aspects from Independence down to
c. 1900).
55
Limitation to post-“quickening” attempts and abortions was
rejected by the courts in Pennsylvania and Iowa. See Mills v.
Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 632-33 (1850); State v. Moore, 25
Iowa 128, 135 (1868).
56
Parker, 50 Mass. at 265. Hale puts it more straightfor-
wardly: the abortifacient is given “unlawfully to destroy the child
within her, and therefore he, that gives a potion to this end, must
take the hazard, and if it kill the mother, it is murder.” R v.
Anonymous (1670), reported in 1 MATTHEW HALE, HISTORY OF
THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN 429-30 (1736) (emphasis added).
 22

always a kind of inchoate felony for felony-murder

purposes.
B. Antebellum Statutes and Post-Ratifica-
tion Precedents
1. State abortion statutes
The Union in 1868 comprised 37 States, of which
30 had statutory abortion prohibitions.57 Most were
classified as defining “offenses against the person,”58
with 27 applying before and after quickening.59 And
Congress, legislating for Alaska and the District of
Columbia shortly after ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment, referred to unborn children as “per-
son[s].”60
Many such statutes were adopted or strengthened
within a year or two of the Amendment’s ratification,
as in New York,61 Alabama,62 and Vermont.63 In Flor-
ida, Ohio, and Illinois, the very legislatures ratifying

57
See James S. Witherspoon, Reexamining Roe: Nineteenth-
Century Abortion Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment, 17
ST. MARY’S L.J. 29, 33 (1985).
58
See id. at 48.
59
See id. at 34.
60
Act of Jan. 19, 1872, 1872 D.C. ACTS 26-29; Act of Mar. 3,
1899, ch. 429, tit. 1, ch. 2, § 8, 30 STAT. 1253-54 (1899).
61
See Act of Apr. 28, 1868, ch. 430, 1868 N.Y. LAWS 856-68;
Act of May 6, 1869, ch. 631 1869 N.Y. LAWS 1502-03.
62
See Act of Feb. 23, 1866, 1866 ALA. PEN. CODE, tit. 1, ch. 5,
§ 64, at 31 (codified ALA. CODE § 3605 (1867)).
63
See Act of Nov. 21, 1867, no 57, 1867 VT. ACTS 64-66.
 23

the Amendment also banned abortion at all stages.64

About a month after ratifying the Amendment, Ohio’s
senate committee concluded that given the “now ...
unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive
from the very moment of conception,” “no opinion
could be more erroneous” than “that the life of the foe-
tus commences only with quickening, that to destroy
the embryo before that period is not child murder.”65
Thus, state legislators not only viewed these laws
as consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, but
also—like any legally informed reader—would have
understood equality of fundamental rights for “any
person” to include the unborn.
2. Precedent Interpreting the Fourteenth
Amendment: The Case of Corporations
The original public legal meaning of “persons” en-
compassed all human beings. On this, the legal
meaning fixed by treatises and cases was confirmed
by rapid mid-1800s expansions of prenatal protec-
tions. And—even apart from the latter evidence—un-
der the Dartmouth College principle giving legal
meaning primacy over drafters’ motivating concerns,
the inclusion of children in utero could not have been
blocked except by wording (easily available, but nei-
ther proposed nor adopted) such as “any person wher-
ever born.”

64
See Act of Aug. 6, 1868, ch. 1637, no. 13, ch. 3 §§ 10-11, ch. 8,
§§ 9-11, 1868 FLA. LAWS 64, 97; Act of Feb. 28, 1867, 1867 ILL.
LAWS 89; Act of Apr. 13, 1867, 1867 OHIO LAWS 135-36.
65
1867 OHIO SEN. J. APP’X 233.
 24

The plain legal meaning and sweep of a constitu-

tional provision “is not to be restricted” by the “exist-
ing” problem it was “designed originally to prevent.”66
So declared Justice Field, riding circuit in Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., and
later affirmed by this Court in its holding that corpo-
rations are persons under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses. Field quoted Chief Justice Mar-
shall in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward:
It is not enough to say that this particular
case was not in the mind of the convention
when the article was framed, nor of the
American people when it was adopted. It is
necessary to ... say that, had this particular
case been suggested, the language would
have been so varied as to exclude it…. The
case being within the words of the rule,
must be within its operation....67
As Marshall had explained in Dartmouth College,
it may be–
more than possible, that the preservation of
rights of this description was not particu-
larly in the view of the framers.... But alt-
hough a particular and a rare case may not,
in itself, be of sufficient magnitude to induce
a rule, yet it must be governed by the rule,

66
18 F. 385, 397 (C.C.D. Cal. 1883) (Field, J.), aff’d, 118 U.S.
394 (1886).
67
Id. (quoting Trs. of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S.
(4 Wheat.) 518, 644-45 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.)).
 25

when established [absent] plain and strong

reason for excluding it[.]68
The plain and original meaning of the constitutional
text extended to the case, though its application had
not been envisaged.69 (Nor was there any “sentiment
delivered by its contemporaneous expounders, which
would justify us in making” any exception.70) This
principle remains an axiom of constitutional (espe-
cially originalist) interpretation today.71
Here it controls. As a matter of plain original
meaning to educated lawyers, just as the college char-
ter considered by Marshall fell under the Contract
Clause, and the railroad considered by Field was a
“person” under the Equal Protection Clause, so too,
but more certainly, prenatal humans are “persons”
under the Clause, whether or not its drafters and rat-
ifiers specifically had that in mind.72
Inclusion of the unborn is more certain because of
their foregrounding in the discussion of fundamental

68
Dartmouth College, 17 U.S. at 644.
69
Id. at 645.
70
Id.
71
See, e.g., McDonald, 561 at 787 (rejecting argument that
“the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the im-
mediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill
of Rights”).
72
See Michael S. Paulsen, The Plausibility of Personhood, 74
OHIO ST. L.J. 13, 23 n.34 (2013) (The unborn should be held to
enjoy constitutional protection “for the same interpretive meth-
odological reason that corporations properly can be understood
as legal persons—that that was the conventional term-of-art le-
gal usage, and thus bears heavily on what the legal meaning of
the term ‘person’ was at the time[.]”) (emphases omitted).
 26

rights to life and security in Blackstone’s Commen-

taries, the formative text for educated lawyers of
1776-89 and 1866-68 (in Congress and nationwide),
invoked in introduction of a civil rights bill prefigur-
ing the Amendment.73
Given the evil they aimed to cure, the Amend-
ment’s ratifiers may not have subjectively had in
mind that the Equal Protection Clause would affect
established antebellum Union rules and institutions
at all.74 But if a state in, say, 1870 had legislated to

73
See supra section I.A.
74
That reasoning synthesizes the judicial rationale of several
restrictive assumptions about the Equal Protection Clause be-
tween 1871-88. See, e.g., Ins. Co v. New Orleans, 13 F.Cas. 67, 1
Woods 85 (C.C.D. La. 1871) (corporations not Fourteenth
Amendment persons); Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130,
139 (1872) (females and practice of law); Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 85
U.S. (18 Wall.) 129, 133 (1873); The Slaughter-House Cases, 83
U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 81 (1872); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S.
303, 304 (1879); The Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3 (1883); Pem-
bina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125
U.S. 181, 188 (1888) (Fourteenth Amendment concerned only
with protecting any class “singled out as a special subject for dis-
criminating and hostile legislation”).
For example, litigants fighting discrimination against women
appealed to the Amendment’s first sentence but never its Equal
Protection Clause. That is inexplicable except based on early
assumptions about that Clause’s application that would also
have blocked early appeals to the Clause by those seeking to bol-
ster fetal protections. These blocking assumptions, when artic-
ulated by courts, proved to concern not the meaning of “any per-
son” but the import of “deny ... the equal protection of the laws.”
They were soon rejected. Under the corrected understanding of
“equal protection,” plus the public meaning that the Clause’s
“any person” phrase always had, the Clause protects the unborn
against state laws permissive of elective abortion.
 27

permit all elective abortions, the reasonable ratifier

would have agreed that the Amendment’s terms enti-
tled guardians ad litem to obtain equitable relief for
unborn children. This could have been denied only on
some Fourteenth-Amendment-limiting theory—e.g.,
of the Amendment’s race-specific motivating goals—
long and rightly rejected by this Court.
II. Roe and Casey’s Arguments Against Fetal
Personhood Are Unsound.
A. Justice Stevens’ defense in Casey has ab-
surd implications.
Since Roe, the only Justice to defend Roe’s denial
of constitutional personhood—Justice Stevens—clung
to a single plank: Roe’s claim that unborn children’s
right to guardians ad litem to protect their property
interests is no recognition of personhood because
those interests are not perfected until birth.75
This plank is no affirmative case, merely a re-
sponse to one counterargument, and still it fails—at-
tempting to drum up a constitutional principle from
one narrowly stated76 sub-constitutional technical
rule77 while ignoring others reflecting the principle

75
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833, 912-13 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissent-
ing in part).
76
The vesting of rights often counts at least as much as their
“perfecting.”
77
Also unavailing is Roe’s reliance on a defunct tort doctrine
rejecting liability for prenatal injuries. Justice Holmes invented
that doctrine well after the Amendment’s ratification, in Dietrich
v. Inhabitants of Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 16 (1884), based
on the fictions that unborn children are “not yet in being” and so
 28

declared by Blackstone, Shaw and the Lord Chancel-

lors whose rulings they cited: The unborn child “is a
person in rerum naturâ” under “the civil and common
law” and “to all intents and purposes[.]”78
Thus, the child in utero has had substantive
rights to receive income or get an injunction against
waste, sufficiently vested to serve her seamlessly
through birth and infancy.79 Then there are the
vested rights of the unborn, enforced by courts
against their parents’ competing rights-claims, in
parens patriae cases ordering blood transfusions,
etc.80 These civil rights to life—which could hardly
override parental rights unless the unborn were
themselves persons—had to be ignored by Roe and by
Justice Stevens. Likewise the convictions, now as

are merely parts of mothers. State and federal courts gradually

exposed those fictions until 1953, when New York’s appellate
court followed the “clear[]” “biological” reality “that separability
begins at conception.” Kelly v. Gregory, 125 N.Y.S. 2d 696, 697
(App. Div. 1953). By 1971 Prosser could write that almost all
jurisdictions have allowed recovery for pre-viability injuries.
WILLIAM L. PROSSER, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS 337 (4th
ed., 1971). He had approvingly called rejection of Holmes’s fic-
tions “the most spectacular abrupt reversal of a well-settled rule
in the whole history of the law of torts.” Id. § 56, at 354 (3d ed.
1964).
78
Hall, 32 Mass. at 257-58.
79
See id. at 258.
80
See Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Mem’l Hosp. & Ann May
Mem’l Found. v. Anderson, 201 A.2d 537, 538 (N.J.), cert denied
377 U.S. 985 (1964); see also Robert M. Byrn, An American Trag-
edy: The Supreme Court on Abortion, 41 FORDHAM L. REV. 807,
844-48 (1973) (collecting cases).
 29

then, for violations of unborn children’s right to life as

enforced in feticide laws.81
B. Roe’s grounds are utterly untenable.
Roe’s counterarguments merit no deference, Roe
having disqualified itself from constitutional-settle-
ment status by refusing to appoint a guardian ad li-
tem or hear the contemporaneous Illinois appeal in-
volving an unborn child so represented82—and its
points fail anyway.
Roe produced three reasons not to recognize un-
born humans as persons. Its textual reason, that
“person” as used elsewhere in the Constitution gave
no “assurance” of “pre-natal application,” was conced-
edly inconclusive, and in fact proves too much.83 Its
pragmatic reason was so implausible that it was

81
See generally Gerard V. Bradley, The Future of Abortion
Law in the United States, 16 NAT’L CATH. BIOETHICS Q. 633
(2016).
82
Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385, 1387 (N.D. Ill. 1971); see
also John D. Gorby, The “Right” to an Abortion, the Scope of
Fourteenth Amendment Personhood, and the Supreme Court’s
Birth Requirement, 4 S. ILL. U.L.J. 1, 8-9 (1979).
83
Roe, 410 U.S. at 157. Notably, no use gives any indication
of when one becomes a person or entails that one becomes a per-
son only at birth. See Joshua J. Craddock, Protecting Prenatal
Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?, 40
HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 539, 550-52 (2017). And any reading
excluding the unborn from personhood because most uses of
“person” cannot apply to them (voting, becoming President, and
so forth) applies a fortiori to corporations, yet the Court from
1886 has unflinchingly included them within equal protection
and due process guarantees for “any person.”
 30

framed in questions, not propositions.84 And its his-

torical reason was a cluster of gross errors drawn
solely from two articles by Cyril Means. (No other
writer on legal history was cited.) His first article,
written while he was general counsel of National
Abortion Rights Action League, had been refuted.85
The second was so recent that no scholar had gotten
to examine its sources, and so flawed that it was
known to “fudge” the history even by counsel for Jane
Roe who cited it.86 Once scrutinized, its sources crum-
bled, as did Roe’s consequent assertion of a historic
“right to terminate a pregnancy.”87
History “disposes of any claim that abortion was a
‘common law liberty,’”88 a preposterous claim whose
putative support is disproven not least by the common
law and statutory history above. And Roe’s astonish-
ing “doubt[]” that post-quickening abortion was “ever

84
It asked how to square unborn personhood with not penal-
izing the mother, or with penalizing abortion less severely “than
the maximum penalty for murder.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 157 n.158.
But see Craddock, supra note 83, at 562-66.
85
See GERMAIN GRISEZ, ABORTION: THE MYTHS, THE REALI-
TIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS 382-92, 395, 434 (1970)
86
A 1971 memorandum circulated among Roe’s legal team
said Means’s “conclusions sometimes strain credibility” and
“fudge” the history but “preserve the guise of impartial scholar-
ship while advancing the proper ideological goals.” DEL-
LAPENNA, supra note 54, at 143-44, 683-84.
87
Roe, 410 U.S. at 140-41.
88
DELLAPENNA, supra note 54, at 1056; see also id. at 336, 351-
54, 374-75, 409-10 n.175.
 31

firmly established as a common law crime”89 contra-

dicts the precedents and authorities since before
Bracton in the 1200s. Means’s attempt to explain
away those precedents, repeated by Roe,90 was soon
refuted, not least by original records underlying the
inaccurate printed accounts used by Means.91
Finally, Roe uncritically reported Means’s view
that “Coke, who himself participated as an advocate
in an abortion case in 1601, may have intentionally
misstated the law.”92 That case, R v. Sims, actually
disproves the charge: The King’s Bench itself author-
itatively stated the unborn-child-protective principles
at issue.93
III. Recognizing Unborn Children as Persons
Requires No Irregular Remedies or Unjust
Penalties.
Recognizing unborn personhood would be a natu-
ral exercise of courts’ power to bind parties to a case
by applying the law to the facts, disregarding uncon-
stitutional laws, directing lower courts, and enjoining
unlawful executive actions.94 Such a holding would
bar lower courts from enjoining prosecutions or vacat-
ing convictions of abortionists. Injunctions would lie
against officials asked to facilitate abortions, as in

89
Roe, 410 U.S. at 136.
90
Id. at 135.
91
DELLAPENNA, supra note 54, at 146-50; see also id. 134-43.
92
Roe, 410 U.S. at 136 n.26.
93
(1601) 75 Eng. Rep. 1075, 1076.
94
See Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc, 140 S. Ct.
2335, 2351 n.8 (2020).
 32

cases like Garza v. Hargan,95 where guardians ad li-

tem could be appointed for the unborn, as before Roe.96
While state homicide laws would need to forbid
elective abortion,97 here too courts would be limited to
customary remedies. Most States have laws tailor-
made for “feticide”98; any carve-outs for elective abor-
tion would be disregarded by courts as invalid.99 New
laws reducing unborn protection would face legal
challenge like any statute today that decriminalized
homicides of some class—say, the cognitively disa-
bled. State regimes invalidated for denying minimal
prenatal protection would, absent amendment, revert
to the default, general homicide law.
Moreover, equal protection allows States to treat
different cases differently, for legitimate ends.100
States may consider degrees of culpability as mitigat-
ing factors or altogether immunize from prosecution
certain participants in wrongful killings. Here such

95
874 F.3d 735, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), cert. granted,
judgment vacated sub nom. Azar v. Garza, 138 S. Ct. 1790 (2018).
96
See, e.g., JOHN T. NOONAN, THE MORALITY OF ABORTION 245
(1970).
97
Cf. People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567, 573 (N.Y. 1984) (rein-
stating rape charges against a husband despite a statutory mar-
ital-rape exception after holding that the exception violated
equal protection and failed rational basis review).
98
See Bradley, supra note 81.
99
See John Finnis, Born and Unborn: Answering Objections to
Constitutional Personhood, FIRST THINGS (Apr. 9, 2021),
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/04/born-and-
unborn-answering-objections-to-constitutional-personhood.
100
See Vacco v. Quill 521 U.S. 793, 799 (1997).
 33

policy choices serve legitimate purposes by fairly bal-

ancing the child’s humanity and her unique physical
dependence and impact on her mother. And the
mother’s constitutional rights could require States to
allow urgent or life-saving medical interventions even
when these would unavoidably result in fetal
death.101
An enforcement responsibility would fall to Con-
gress if States failed in their duties, which could fol-
low a personhood holding with proportional legisla-
tion under Section 5 of the Amendment to protect the
unborn.102
CONCLUSION
The Court should reverse the judgment of the
Fifth Circuit and hold that Mississippi’s law is per-
missible—and required—because the unborn are
“person[s]” guaranteed equal protection and due pro-
cess by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT P. GEORGE
Counsel of Record
ROBINSON & MCELWEE
700 VIRGINIA STREET EAST
CHARLESTON, WV 23501
(304) 344-5800
[email protected]
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

July 29, 2021

101
See Roe, 410 U.S. at 127 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
102
See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 530 (1997).