Supreme Court Declines To Hear Case On Personhood


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

In a major setback for pro-life advocates the Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that sought to give Constitutional rights to the unborn.

The case was brought by a  Catholic group and two women, who were pregnant when the initial case was brought, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court used Roe V Wade as precedent to deny the case, CNN reported.

But after the Supreme Court ended Roe V Wade the group took their case to them, but were again denied.

“The questions presented are pointed and inevitable, in light of Dobbs,” the petitioners said. “The record here presents all that is necessary to resolve the unfinished business left by Dobbs. Now is the time.”

“This Court should grant the writ to finally determine whether prenatal life, at any gestational age, enjoys constitutional protection – considering the full and comprehensive history and tradition of our Constitution and law supporting personhood for unborn human beings, the group said.

NBC News reported.


Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in June’s ruling overturning the abortion rights precedent that the court took no position in the decision on “if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth.”

Some Republicans at the state level have pursued what are called fetal personhood laws, like one enacted in Georgia affecting fetuses starting at around six weeks of pregnancy, that would grant fetuses before birth a variety of legal rights and protections like those of any person.

The U.S. Supreme Court apparently still has not identified the person who leaked a draft of the court’s major abortion decision back in early May.

Five months later, as the court begins its new term, the leaker’s identity is still unknown. Over the summer, reports surfaced that the Court was seeking access to the phone records of law clerks in an effort to learn how the opinion may have leaked out, Fox News reported.

In a recent interview with CNN anchor Chris Wallace, recently retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said he has not been informed that the leaker has been identified.

“Within 24 hours the chief justice ordered an investigation of the leaker. Have they found him or her?” Wallace asked.

“Not to my knowledge, but … I’m not privy to it,” Breyer responds.

Wallace followed up by asking: “So in those months since, the chief justice never said, ‘Hey, we got our man or woman?’”

“To my knowledge, no,” again responded Breyer, who despite being retired maintains an office at the Supreme Court.

Other justices have also spoken about the identity of the leaker and the court’s investigation.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed earlier this month that he hopes the investigation into the leak will soon be completed.

“The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch said. “That committee has been busy, and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope, soon.”


At the time, the nation’s highest court admitted that a “copy of a draft opinion in a pending case” was made public, but added that it did “not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Nearly four months after the leak, the identity of the leaker is still unknown, however.

One Republican lawmaker recently speculated that the Supreme Court’s liberal-leaning justices are likely aware of who the leaker is.

Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana said he believed that at least some of the justices know the leaker’s identity.

“We all could probably agree that the justices that were appointed by Democrat presidents know who the leaker was,” he said. “What bothers me, it’s not only the undermining that it did of the institution and the trust factor that these folks have with each other,” it’s that now that the trust is broken, “it’s very difficult to restore it.”

Rosendale said he believes the person or persons who released the information will be revealed.

“There could be more people involved, and those people could go all the way to the top,” he said. “Don’t eliminate the judges because you know people, so there’s no way that would happen. No way. Think about it. Michael Sussmann is on trial right now for Russiagate. That happened six years ago. We’re only getting answers right now. I hope it doesn’t take another six years to get answers to what happened at the Supreme Court.”

Back to top button