Views on abortion have always been difficult to reconcile. Under our constitution, anyone born here is a citizen and has all of the rights of all other citizens. But when does a human fetus or embryo become a person with such rights? The question can be most challenging when the rights of two people—the mother and the fetus—conflict. My own view is that a fetus obtains the status of person with the right to protection, when it is viable, i.e., capable of living when removed from the womb.
The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that an embryo is a person that must enjoy the protections of the law, moves the goal post to a whole new level. Dr. Ito Briones (MD, Ph.D) argues that, if that is true and applied into practical terms, then women will be subject to a whole new level of restrictions on their behavior in the interest of the unborn person. His interesting observations follow:
The recent ruling by the Alabama supreme court to equate the embryo as a person started when embryos frozen in tubes were accidentally destroyed in a fertility clinic. The parents sued the clinic based on Alabama’s law of “wrongful death of a minor’s act”. The lower courts said that this law does not apply but the Alabama Supreme Court overturned that decision. And so here we are.
As a practical consequence of this ruling, IVF clinics in Alabama have expectedly suspended treatments. There are already numerous outlets online and in the news that discuss this topic and so I will not discuss this here anymore. Unfortunately, there are also other unintended consequences from this decision that might turn the mundane day to day life of a woman into a dystopian mess.
Here are other issues that may need to be considered because of this ruling.
- Is a restaurant owner liable for serving alcohol to a pregnant woman even if she didn’t know she was pregnant and does not inform the establishment? Presently, restaurants and stores can be held legally liable if they serve or sell alcohol to minors. The liability is valid even if they were not aware of the age status of the patron. To solve this issue, restaurants ask for an ID to confirm age. Does this mean women should also be required to show a negative pregnancy test before being served any alcohol?
- Coffee has been scientifically proven to be harmful to the embryo. Do women also have to show a negative pregnancy test before being served coffee? Caffeine is the main culprit in harming embryos and caffeine is also present in tea, chocolate, soft drinks and other foodstuff. Should the government limit the sale of these items to women?
- How about pregnant women who have breast cancer or any cancer? Can they get treatment even if it will most probably harm if not kill the embryo?
Before this ruling, a medical case of a pregnant woman with cancer will involve an intimate discussion with the woman, her husband and family, and the doctor. Because of this ruling, the government and law enforcement will have to join the already hypersensitive and impossible dilemma that she will face.
Additionally, any medical treatment on a pregnant woman will have to be reviewed by lawyers to make sure that the embryo’s rights are taken into consideration.
Medical studies have shown that stress on pregnant women may harm the embryo. Stress can induce sleepless nights, hypertension, loss of appetite or a tendency to overeat, headaches, etc.
Can pregnant women (at any trimester including the first) work as nurses (exposing the embryo/child to harm) or police officers? Should women in these jobs show a monthly negative pregnancy test while at work?
Driving can be very stressful for the woman. Can pregnant women drive?
Do women have to show a negative pregnancy test while enrolled in college?
By the way, is every miscarriage going to be handled as a possible homicide?
If I have any recommendation about this ruling it is that one should invest in pregnancy test kits soon. The stock value of these tests in the market will surely skyrocket.
Warren's space 
I would be incorrect to conflate the idea of personhood and the rights of citizenship in this case, since the 14th Amendment says “All persons born ….”
The idea of personhood prior to being born is of concern because we cannot say what status to assign to the developing embryo.
Those who accept the essentially Nietzscheian view will simply pick a date, e.g. 6 weeks, heartbeat, et al. But the Religious will consult their theology.
In this case, the civil society should devolve the decision about the “date” during development that the embryo can be called a fetus and assigned personhood. Only the mother can make that assignment, and tell others. If she procrastinates, others will notice her abdomen and make the choice for her. It astounds me anyone would want to impose the social pressure on an undecided potential mother.
Years ago in an honor students class I was teaching at the UVA we discussed this issue (i.e. who and how to chose when there are two lives to be protected). One smart assed kid said he thought the mother should be able to decide to terminate (i.e that there was no second life to protect) up to two years old.
The student wasn’t female. Was the “smart assed kid” an impregnator? Was self-interest involved? Clearly, the student was anti-natalist, like Margaret Sanger.
Once the surrounding society (family, friends) recognize her physiological changes the woman will lose control of the personhood issue. That is when civil society questions become worth discussing.