Bills
| 3.23.22

Should "Life" be Legally Defined as Beginning at Conception? (S. 2464)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 2464?

(Updated December 10, 2021)

This bill would give equal protections to born and unborn humans under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution — effectively banning abortions. It would not amend or interpret the Constitution, but instead rely on the following part of the 14th Amendment to extend protections to the unborn:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person or life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Following conception, an unborn person would be afforded the same legal protections as those who have already been born. Conception would be defined as the moment of fertilization or cloning, or:

"other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

Nothing in this bill is to be construed as:

  • requiring the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, 
  • prohibiting in vitro fertilization, 
  • or prohibiting the use of birth control and other methods of contraception (or preventing fertilization).

Argument in favor

The time has come for Congress to recognize that the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution, including the unborn. By defining life as beginning at conception, this bill could negate the Supreme Court’s mistake in Roe v. Wade.

Argument opposed

A fetus is not a person, and as such it shouldn’t receive the same legal protections as people who have already been born. This is another futile attempt to undermine the right of women to determine their own reproductive future.

Impact

Unborn humans, their parents, state governments, and Congress.

Cost of S. 2464

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) explained the rationale behind the introduction of this bill in an introductory press release:

“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way.”

In the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun admitted that he wasn’t in a position to determine definitively when life begins. However, he made the following concession about the right to life and how it related to the case at hand:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e. “Roe” who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

By defining life as beginning at conception, this legislation would strike down the rationale used by the Supreme Court to allow women to access abortions. 

ThinkProgress noted that when Sen. Paul introduced this legislation in 2013, he granted that there would be complex and unique situations that couldn’t be immediately addressed from a legal standpoint in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:

“Well, there is going to be like I say thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved… there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

RH Reality Check Editor in Chief, Jodi Jacobson, argues that the idea of "life at conception," not only confuses the real issue of when personhood begins, but also dehumanizes women in general:  

"In the end, when you hear the phrase “life begins at conception,” remember the implications. In debating the 'personhood' of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicitly debating the personhood of women. Because if you have no choice and control over your body, you are less than an actual person in the eyes of the law. If the right is so worried about abortion the closer a pregnancy gets to viability, then anti-choicers would be making sure both contraception and early, safe abortion were widely available. That really is not their actual concern.
The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can’t reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women."

Currently this bill has six cosponsors in the Senate, all of whom are Republicans.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Sexy Eggs)