While some efforts across the country have been successful in limiting abortion, hundreds of thousands of unborn babies still lose their lives to abortion every year in the United States.
FACT believes that life begins at conception, and we drafted a bill protecting life in the womb as soon as it can be detected. It was based on the argument that the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our absolute rights at common law, one of which is the right to life even “in the mother’s womb.” This legislation would have been drastically different from “heartbeat bills” because it does not argue for life within the limited confines of the Court’s 14th Amendment Roe v Wade decision. Roe is not precedent for a 9th Amendment-based law.
Every heartbeat bill ever enacted has been held unenforceable.
Do you agree with FACT and others, that taking Roe v. Wade head-on, as the Rule of Law Life Act does, would be a better approach than a Missouri "laddered" approach?