Rep. Gabbard claims that the Georgia heartbeat law is clearly unconstitutional. I think she’s wrong. The U.S. constitution has nothing to say about whether or not a fetus that has a heartbeat is or is not a natural person (or a human being). There is no provision that makes such a determination, and the attempt to find it in the matter of privacy is futile. It’s not there. Roe v. Wade is a ruling that the 50 states should simply disregard. They should pass their own laws.
The Georgia law, in contrast to the U.S. Constitution, clearly defines the status of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat as an unborn child who is a member of the human race (the species Homo sapiens) and thereby protected from abortion with certain exceptions provided in the law. This law’s definitions and determinations are perfectly clear.
There can be no legal determination of rights of the mother versus rights of the unborn child without such a law’s definitions and determinations. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that’s what the Georgia law does.
The argument made by Gabbard that the law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Roe v. Wade is devoid of content under any sensible reading of the U.S. constitution. Sooner or later, laws made by the 50 states are going to result in a new Supreme Court case and Roe v. Wade will be overturned if the 9 justices can read and make an unbiased and un-politicized judgment.
Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it doesn’t have the final or only say on what is or is not constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t assign that role to it. The other bodies that have a say are the Congress, the Executive, the 50 States and the People.12:52 pm on May 14, 2019 Email Michael S. Rozeff