How many SCOTUS votes are there for fetal personhood?

[brucejoel99]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

I strongly doubt Kavanaugh wants fetal personhood. He'd be down with overturning Roe and Casey and sending legal abortion back to the states, but that's not the same thing.

I seem to think he wants fetal personhood.

Why do you think this?

Because something something FedSoc-enabled dictatorship, obviously.

[brucejoel99]

In all seriousness, probably 0, & that's even with ACB on the Court. It just can't be understated how much of an extreme minority position the pro-life fetal personhood position is in the legal world, & I just can't see anybody of the Court's academic pedigrees - even somebody of ACB's originalist disposition - choosing to invoke it in an abortion case that manages to come before them.

Seriously, think about the position for more than a sec: say the Court were to hold to a strict originalist interpretation of the inclusion of the word "persons" within the Constitution so that it'd have to apply to unborn fetuses, meaning that they'd be protected by the 14th Amendment. Given that the Citizenship Clause clarifies that citizenship is only granted to people who are born in the United States, such an interpretation would mean that fetuses - although people - would have to be considered stateless persons. It's such legal insanity that I just can't see anybody capable of making it to the Court ever signing onto such a position.

[brucejoel99]

I’m not completely sure if Kavanaugh would declare fetal personhood. Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett definitely would.

"I neither read a word that anybody else posts in response to the 'questions' which I ask nor do I even attempt to offer anything in the form of actual evidence that would prove what I'm claiming to be true as well as the rationality thereof. Now, if you'll excuse me while I once again repeat my laughably unsubstantiated claim for the 5,742nd time tonight."

[brucejoel99]

I honestly think you could get 5 votes for it, but Roberts for sure wouldn't vote for it mostly because he likes the court looking nonpartisan and declaring fetal personhood would obviously not do that.

This is an area where Kavanaugh would break from Roberts.

But you literally just said in your last comment on this thread before this one that "[you're] not completely sure if Kavanaugh would declare fetal personhood." Now - less than 2 hours later - you're suddenly able to express as if it's a fact that "[t]his is an area where Kavanaugh would break from Roberts"? Literally what is the proof which you're basing such a statement on? Does anything that even resembles basic reasoning actually underlie your evidently obvious opinion on this matter? Jesus, why is your only purpose on this forum seemingly to just up your post count almost into the tens-of-thounsands range now without actually posting anything of semblance, let alone contributing anything of merit to the very discussions which - need you be reminded? - you yourself are starting 99.99% of the time on this board?