Alabama Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade

On February 17, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court decided Hamilton v. Scott. The case involved an interpretation of Alabama's wrongful death statute. The Court held that Amy Hamilton had a claim under the statute even though her unborn child died before viability. The most interesting aspect of the case is a special concurrence written by Justice Parker. The concurrence presents an extended critique of Roe's viability standard. Here is the conclusion:

"Roe's viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development. And together, Alabama's homicide statute, the decisions of this Court, and the statutes and judicial decisions from other states make abundantly clear that the law is no longer, in Justice Blackmun's words, "reluctant ... to accord legal rights to the unborn." For these reasons, Roe's viability rule is neither controlling nor persuasive here and should be rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court."

David Smolin comment on the opinion is instructive. Smolin noted--"It is philosophically, morally and ethically problematic to consider a human as a person for some things and not for others. It makes us uncomfortable with elective abortion. The more places where the law puts them as a human person, the more it makes us think about what we are doing with abortion."

Richard M.