Elliot Institute’s Voice Heard at the Supreme Court

Most of March was occupied in writing an amicus curiae brief for the Supreme Court’s review of Planned Parenthood v Casey. Springfield attorney Stephen Kaufmann provided invaluable assistance in the preparation and filing of this brief.

Drawing on our past research, the Elliot Institute provided evidence to the court demonstrating that the unregulated abortion industry is denying women information they need to make an informed choice about the risks of abortion versus childbirth. We also presented evidence showing that women who receive poor counseling are more likely to suffer greater post-abortion problems.

While the bulk of the brief was devoted to the informed consent issue, we also struck at the core issues underlying Roe. We urged the Court to reject the vague and unworkable “right to privacy” standard and replace it with a more carefully defined “natural right of reproductive freedom.”

We argued that: “The natural right of reproductive freedom, as guaranteed in the constitutionally reserved rights of individuals, is that right which arises from a person’s natural reproductive biology, in respect of which: 1) The State may not limit any person’s natural fertility or prevent persons from naturally conceiving or bearing children, and 2) the State may not force any person to conceive children nor compel any person to provide reproductive material for the artificial conception or gestation of children.”

Most people do not realize that according current law, according to Supreme Court’s 1927 decision Buck v Bell, the State may forcibly sterilize persons it declares unfit to reproduce. The reasonable extension of this rationale would be to allow forced abortions, as in China, when deemed necessary to the interests of the State’s social engineers. Many population control zealots and eugenicists continue to urge State control over the rights of couples to bear children. Therefore, true protection of the individual’s natural reproductive rights is essential.

Our argument to the Court delineates between the natural rights of individuals, as seen in their natural biology, and technological manipulations of reproductive biology. Outside the restrictions of these natural rights, we argued, the State should be free to regulate all reproductive technologies in order to protect individuals and society from the abuse of these technologies. In essence, this is a natural law argument which defends individuals but also recognized the right of the State to regulate abortion practices, contraceptive technologies, genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and other manipulations of human reproduction.

— David C. Reardon

Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 1(1) Winter 1993. Copyright 1993 Elliot Institute

• 
• 
• 
•