As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.
Paragraph 4 of 6
Sentence 5 of 6
This sentence is essentially the same claim with opposite specifics:
“Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’ Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191(4)(b).”
One interesting element of this sentence, this claim, is that it references the Mississippi law that animates this entire case. Here’s the subsection cited:
- (4) “Abortion limited to fifteen (15) weeks’ gestation except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality.
- (a) “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not perform, induce, or attempt to perform or induce an abortion unless the physician or the referring physician has first made a determination of the probable gestational age of the unborn human being and documented that gestational age in the maternal patient’s chart and, if required, in a report to be filed with the department as set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection. The determination of probable gestational age shall be made according to standard medical practices and techniques used in the community.
- (b) “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform, induce, or attempt to perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.
The use of the phrase “unborn human being” highlights a problem in the discussion about the issue of abortion. Pro-choice advocates argue that such a phrase is loaded language, unjustifiably granting the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus a kind of rhetorical personhood. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, argue that to use more clinical language (zygote, blastocyst, etc.) unjustifiably denies the entity in question that rhetorical personhood. I don’t know if this particular conflict is reconcilable to everybody’s satisfaction, so I’m going to hold off on determining my own terminology, but it’s valuable to track the many different ways in which the . . . subject of this debate is described.
The claim is as true as the last one. Which is to say, true:
- “Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’”
Cynical Jason 