Will Alabama’s New Pro-Life Law Lead to a Supreme Court Roe v. Wade Challenge?

The pro-life governor of Alabama signed an expansive anti-abortion bill into law this week that would criminalize the killing of the unborn. Gov. Kay Ivey said, “All human life is precious.”

That hasn’t been the case for decades, as far as the abortion lobby is concerned. Pro-lifers at the very least want Planned Parenthood, which receives half a billion in taxpayers’ money every year and kills over 300,000 every year, barred from receiving any taxpayers’ money, regardless of how the accounting book says the money is used.

“You certainly cannot deter your efforts to protect the unborn because of cost, even if it means going to the United States Supreme Court,” Gov. Ivey said.

Is this law a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, destined to end up argued before the high court? Seven of nine Supreme Court justices contended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution protected a previous unknown right of privacy for women to kill their unborn children until they could live outside the womb. In the case of viability, they argued, the state has a compelling interest to protect the human. After the first trimester, the woman’s “right” to kill her offspring is restricted.

Lawmakers in Alabama went for it, making it illegal for any doctor to kill an unborn baby in the state. From USA Today:

The legislation was drafted by Eric Johnston of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition and framed as an explicit attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down state bans on abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The bill, if it becomes law, would allow abortions only if the life of the woman was threatened; if the woman had a mental illness that could result in “her death or the death of her unborn child;” or if the fetus had a fatal anomaly that would result in stillbirth or its death after birth.

As the measure recognizes, there might be compelling reasons for a woman to stop the pregnancy, namely, self-defense — continuing the pregnancy might kill her. But the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are convenience-based, first-trimester abortions.

Featured photo credit: Life News – Steven Ertelt

Check Also

Ryan Bomberger: Don’t Turn Away from Your DNA, GOP

Politicians pander. Platforms shouldn’t. Each Party’s manifesto is an articulation of their firmly held beliefs. …


  1. I am sorry I hear or read about the Roe v. Wade from deepest depths of the swears of my mind comes the unbidden realization the the Wade in this case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Menasco Wade who had prosecuted Jack Leon Ruby for shooting Lee Harvey Oswald on national television. The whole subject of abortion sickens because it is act of killing an innocent child.

    • D.A. Wade submitted a brilliant brief to the Court defending the rights of the unborn child. The Court’s decision gave no evidence that any of them had even read it. Obviously their minds were made up already. In fact, Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, later admitted that his wife and daughter had influenced him because they thought abortion should be legal – as did a lot of the elites back then.

      Also, this article is not quite accurate, because under the present regime there really are NO restrictions on abortion. Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took away the protection allowed by Roe in the third trimester, by saying that abortion must be allowed to protect the “life or health” of the woman – and then defined “health” so broadly as to make even that slight restriction meaningless. That’s how NY was able to get away with passing a law that removed all restrictions up to birth.

      Another tragedy connected with this case: neither “Roe” nor “Doe” ever actually had an abortion, and “Doe” didn’t even want one! They were used by radical-feminist attorneys who wanted a vehicle to legalize abortion. To their great credit, both women later repudiated the decisions that were made in their names.