The recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, declaring frozen embryos to be legally considered children, brings attention to the underlying belief held by anti-abortion advocates that a fetus should have equal rights to a person. This belief is reflected in less sensational laws and proposals put forth by anti-abortion activists across the United States.

Legislators in at least six states have suggested bills resembling the one in Georgia, which permits women to pursue child support from the point of conception to cover pregnancy-related costs. Georgia additionally permits expecting parents to claim a tax deduction for dependent children before they are born, while Utah passed a pregnancy tax exemption last year. Similar proposals are being considered by lawmakers in four other states.

According to an analysis by the Associated Press using Plural, there are multiple proposals in at least 15 states that fall under the category of promoting fetal rights. These proposals include legislation that criminalizes harm or death to a fetus.

The recent ruling in Alabama has brought attention to the anti-abortion movement’s objective of affording embryos and fetuses the same legal and constitutional rights as the pregnant women. However, supporters of abortion rights fear that any measure granting even minimal protections to embryos and fetuses could have far-reaching consequences.

Melissa Murray, a professor at New York University School of Law, stated that any law that is applicable to humans could also be enforced for fetuses. She also mentioned that this includes all forms of statutory and constitutional laws.

Those against abortion claim that suggestions for adjusting income taxes or providing child support, as well as providing state assistance to anti-abortion centers for pre and postnatal care, are motivated by empathy towards vulnerable women and girls. They believe that this support could convince some women not to end their pregnancies, but also acknowledge that their tax and child support plans would benefit all women and girls, regardless of their thoughts on abortion.

Lucrecia Nold, a representative for the Kansas Catholic Conference, stated that the primary objective is to offer assistance and aid to mothers and families in need, as well as to those who are supporting them, including pregnancy resource centers.

A hearing was held by a Kansas House committee at the beginning of this month regarding the proposal for child support. There is also a bill being considered by a Senate committee that would allow potential parents to claim the state’s $2,250 tax deduction for dependents before the child is actually born. It is anticipated that legislators will address both matters in the upcoming weeks.

Kansas stands out compared to other states with Republican-controlled Legislatures due to a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court in 2019. The decision stated that the Kansas Constitution guarantees access to abortion as a fundamental right to control one’s own body. In response, lawmakers proposed an amendment to the constitution that would explicitly state that it does not grant the right to abortion, giving them the ability to severely limit or forbid the procedure. However, in August 2022, voters overwhelmingly rejected the amendment, making it the first of seven state votes to uphold abortion rights following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that allows states to ban abortion.

However, there is a law in place in Kansas since 2007 which permits individuals to be charged with separate offenses for crimes committed against fetuses. These offenses can include capital murder, vehicular homicide, and battery. This law has not been contested. In 2013, another state law was passed stating that life begins at fertilization and that the well-being of unborn children should be safeguarded. This law, however, has not been enforced as a restriction on abortion.

Attorney and policy director for Kansas Family Voice, Brittany Jones, who is against abortion and supported the child support measure, stated that the state Supreme Court disregarded these laws in their 2019 ruling.

“I find it absurd that people are reacting so strongly to our attempt to do something innovative within the legal system,” she stated. “We firmly believe that both the mother and child have inherent worth. I stand by that belief; it is the truth.”

Abortion rights advocates suggest that the motives of those who oppose abortion are questionable when they propose less comprehensive solutions related to child support or income taxes. They argue that these measures do not provide substantial assistance to pregnant women and their families.

At the recent Kansas House committee hearing, providers of abortion services made a case that the state could assist them by expanding social services, such as Medicaid, improving access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive care, or implementing paid family leave. The state’s budget office estimated that around 21,000 additional income tax filers would be eligible for the dependent deduction, with an average savings of $91 per filer.

Elisabeth Smith, state policy and advocacy director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which fights for abortion access, called such measures “window dressing” and said they and the Alabama Supreme Court ruling are part of a coordinated anti-abortion campaign across the U.S.

Smith stated that this is a clear effort by the opponents to continue spreading negative views about abortion and to establish the idea that an embryo or fetus holds the same value as a fully developed human being.

However, Mary Zieger, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis, who has written six books since 2015 on the ongoing national abortion debate and its past, believes that state-level measures regarding fetal personhood may also impact the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, prompting them to examine the historical and traditional application of constitutional rights to fetuses and embryos.

She stated, “Furthermore, there are multiple states that also support this stance.”

In 2018, voters in Alabama changed the state’s constitution to state that protecting the rights of unborn children is a top priority. This provision was referenced by judges in their individual opinions regarding frozen embryos.

Broad fetal rights proposals are pending in at least four states, and Vermont has one to grant rights to fetuses at the 24th week of pregnancy, though it is not likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Ziegler, who is currently writing a book on the advocacy for fetal rights, stated that these wide-ranging actions are not likely to be well-received by voters who prioritize preserving abortion accessibility and in vitro fertilization for women struggling with infertility.

She stated that anti-abortion advocates are searching for “unicorn” legislation that promotes fetal personhood without enraging voters.

The objective is ultimately to gain federal recognition for fetal personhood, so there seems to be a longer-term strategy at play, according to her.

____

Reported by Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.