WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) - A top Missouri Republican is comparing the pro-life movement with the fight to abolish slavery.
"You think about the abolitionists who fought against the moral evil of slavery because they knew there was a moral truth that every person is created equal and has equal rights," exclaimed Hawley. "That's what pro-lifers are fighting for, is that great moral principle."
"You think about the abolitionists who ... fought against the moral evil of slavery ... because they knew there was a moral truth that every person is created equal and has equal rights," says @HawleyMO.— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) June 16, 2021
"That's what pro-lifers are fighting for, is that great moral principle." pic.twitter.com/DNXNNno9ww
The proposed WHPA legislation would "create a statutory right for health care providers to provide abortion care," which, in turn, would force Catholic and other Christian companies to pay for murdering babies in their healthcare plans.
Hawley's comparison draws from a very popular theory arguing the legality of abortion and slavery come from the same legal principle.
The conclusions of Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion, and the case leading up to it, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), are both based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
There are, in contemporary jurisprudence, however, two types of due process. The first is called procedural due process, which guarantees citizens maintain their constitutional protections until they have their day in court.
The second type is called substantive due process, which is when the court acknowledges fundamental rights that supposedly transcend the constitution on the basis of, inter alia, natural law theory.
Roe and Griswold supposedly protect the natural "right of privacy" pursuant to substantive due process — a right Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black asserted is not constitutional when dissenting to Griswold in 1965.
"The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not," Black declared.
Scholars argue the first holding to draw from substantive due process was Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1856), wherein the court decreed that masters have a natural and constitutional right to the proprietorship of their slaves.
The opinion proclaims, "The only private property which the Constitution has specifically recognized, and has imposed it as a direct obligation both on the states and the federal government to protect and enforce, is the property of the master in his slave."
Hawley graduated from Yale Law School in 2002 and served as Missouri's Attorney General from 2017–2019. It was his job to know the law, and it's now his job to write the law as a senator.
Legal experts, like the Missouri Senator, intertwine the two issues because the abolition of slavery rid the nation of a misinterpretation and misapplication of natural law, as pro-lifers intend to do with abortion.
Hawley simply outlines why he wants to do away with the absolutism of the so-called natural right of privacy, as the moral evil of abortion runs afoul of the natural law, as did slavery — and neither have any place in U.S. legal system.