pageok
pageok
pageok
Federalism and Partial Birth Abortion:

In Gonzales v. Carhart, today's partial birth abortion decision, the mostly liberal advocates of virtually limitless congressional power under the Commerce Clause are to a certain extent reaping the fruit of what they sowed in cases such as Gonzales v. Raich. I discussed this point in more detail in a post discussing the oral argument in Carhart, back in November. In the argument, Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that a federal ban on partial birth abortion - particularly one that extends to free abortion clinics - may exceed Congress' Commerce Clause authority, which only gives it the power to regulate "commerce . . . among the several States:" That concern is, in my view, well-taken. However, it directly contradicts the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which endorsed virtually unlimited congressional power over anything that Congress has a "rational" basis to believe is even remotely connected to interstate commerce. Ironically, Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich, and Ginsburg signed on to it. For more details on why Raich, for all practical purposes, completely negates limits on congressional power, see my article on the case, and also the excellent analysis by VC co-conspirator Jonathan Adler. Obviously, liberal justices were not the only ones to endorse essentially unlimited federal power in Raich, and David Bernstein is right to call attention to Justice Scalia's possible doubts about the validity of his deeply flawed concurring opinion in that case. I critique that opinion at pp. 25-27 of my article.

I warned in the article and in my November post on Carhart that virtually limitless federal power can be used to uphold far-reaching conservative legislation, as well as liberal, and that it is far from clear that unlimited federal power is in the interests of liberals in an era when the federal government will often be controlled by conservative Republicans. And I explained how the federal partial birth abortion ban is an example supporting my point.

More importantly in a highly diverse society most such controversial social issues are better handled at the state, local, and private sector levels than through a one-size-fits all federal solution. Federalism debates often come down to a matter of whose ox is being gored in a particular case, which is perhaps understandable. However, there are also important systematic advantages of decentralization that are lost under a central government with nearly unlimited power. I will not go over those advantages in detail in this already lengthy post. But I have written about them extensively in the Raich article, and also here, here, here, and here, among other places.

Perhaps one consequence of Gonzales v. Carhart will be at least a modest increase in appreciation for federalism among both liberal and conservative jurists.

UPDATE: As I noted in my November post, the parties in this case did not raise the Commerce Clause/federalism issue, and the Court therefore was right not to address it. This post is not so much a criticism of the Court's reasoning, as an analysis of the case's broader implications.

James Burg:
It would seem to me, Ilya, that abortion would be one of those subjects where broad-reaching federal legislation would actually be preferable.

If you believe, as anti-abortion opponents do, that abortion is the equivalent of murder, there is no reasonable moral argument to be made for federalism: you would no more prefer that abortion be illegal on a state-by-state basis than you would homicide. By the same token, pro-abortion supporters believe the opposite and -if you take the proposition that abortion is not murder as a given - there is no reason to prevent only women in certain states from making their own decisions about their bodies. The result: both parties would regard federalism on this topic to result in grave injustices.

I fall into the pro-choice camp myself, but would argue that this question of morality is something that cannot be "proven" in any factual sense. As a result, I can't make a logical argument for precisely what form federal legislation should take. But at the same time, I ultimately don't see any morally coherent reason to take a federalist approach to abortion in the first place.
4.18.2007 4:34pm
Ilya Somin:
If you believe, as anti-abortion opponents do, that abortion is the equivalent of murder, there is no reasonable moral argument to be made for federalism.

The fact that something is a "moral" issue doesn't invalidate the argument for federalism. Perhaps ideally you would want the "right" solution to apply everywhere across the board. However, federal control also increases the chance that the wrong solution will be applied everywhere. Furthermore, to the extent that there is serious disagreement over a moral issue, that should lead you to consider the possibility that your own opinion might be wrong, and therefore to be reluctant to impose a one size fits all solution for that reason as well. Finally, abortion regulation is not in fact purely a moral issue. It also concerns empirical issues, such as the likely real-world effects of various regulations, including the possibility of generating a "black market" in abortion.
4.18.2007 4:43pm
Justin (mail):
If NARAL brought a challenge under Commerce Clause grounds AND Casey, its conceivable the 4 dissenting Justices could all write an opinion based on this case, saying that today's case should be overturned. That would leave (particularly) Thomas and Scalia in a tough spot - they could write a concurring opinion on the Commerce Clause issue, invalidating the federal law but leaving it up to the states - or they could find no Commerce Clause violation and be stuck with the precedent. This puts Thomas and Scalia in a far larger bind than the four dissenters today, who (along with Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito, who would presumably dissent) could beat back the Commerce Clause challenge while still getting the (federal) law overturned.

And to Burg's point. Ilya, I think James Burg was making the point that some anti-abortion activists make, which is that the fetus is a human deserving of Fourteenth Amendment rights, and therefore excluding them from homicide statutes is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Not an argument that will get you very far in real life, but there it is.
4.18.2007 4:47pm
Steve:
Furthermore, to the extent that there is serious disagreement over a moral issue, that should lead you to consider the possibility that your own opinion might be wrong, and therefore to be reluctant to impose a one size fits all solution for that reason as well.

It's funny that what you regard as the federalist argument sounds exactly like the pro-choice argument. There's not one single State in the Union, after all, that is so monolithic on the abortion issue that there won't be serious disagreement even within the boundaries of that single State.
4.18.2007 5:00pm
eric (mail):
Justin -

I do not really see the bind it would put Thomas (and maybe Scalia, Alito, and/or Roberts) in? Adding a commerce clause challenge merely turns the dissent in this case into a plurality. The majority opinion in this decision would still stand, thus allowing a state to enact the substance of the federal legislation.
4.18.2007 5:18pm
D Thompson:
Kathleen Sullivan has made a similar argument about "States' Rights for Blue States" in her recent Fordham Law Review piece.
4.18.2007 5:27pm
Qwinn:
The fact that something is a "moral" issue doesn't invalidate the argument for federalism.

You're missing the point. Of course an issue simply being simply "moral" does not trump federalism. But if it is an issue of homicide, which is what pro-lifers believe all abortion is, then yes, federalism is quite easily trumped. The Federal government is absolutely explicitly empowered to regulate against homicide.

As to the question of whether or not it's homicide, I don't believe I've ever heard anything approaching a rational, coherent argument that a partial birth abortion does not constitute a homicide. If you want to claim the "clump of cells" argument for the first trimester, fine, I believe it's wrong but it's at least not beyond the realm of coherent thought or critical thinking to believe it. But by the late date in which all partial birth abortions occur, of course it's murder, as the infant is way way way beyond the "clump of cells" stage.

Note that this doesn't mean I haven't heard people try to justify that position, it's just that every justification I've heard has been downright delirious in it's overreach and attempt to defend the indefensible.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 5:28pm
Steve:
The Federal government is absolutely explicitly empowered to regulate against homicide.

Where does this explicit grant of power reside?
4.18.2007 5:31pm
Qwinn:
I would think that would be easily encompassed by both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Would it not? The Fifth being stronger in this case. After all, what due process is the fetus receiving before being deprived of life?

Qwinn
4.18.2007 5:39pm
Steve:
You said "explicit." That word usually has a meaning.

If you want to argue that a fetus has due process rights - and not just procedural due process rights, you're arguing for SUBSTANTIVE due process - be my guest, but don't act like the Constitution actually spells that out.
4.18.2007 5:42pm
Qwinn:
Okay, fair enough, it's not as explicitly laid out as I thought... I thought that the federal government's right to regulate against the taking of "life, liberty and property" was broader than just that context.

But, once you accept the personhood of the infant in question, then yes, I would put forth the argument that they would automatically merit substantive due process. On what legitimate grounds could they be denied it? In that sense, yes, I do believe it's spelled out.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 5:52pm
Qwinn:
Oh, and I'd just like to add, this is the approach I have felt pro-lifers should take all along, if they haven't been (I readily confess I am not a lawyer, and thus am not aware of what legal arguments have been made that didn't win the day, I'm only somewhat familiar with the legal arguments enforcing the status quo).

I can see how the pro-choice side would do -anything- to prevent it though. I mean, if one had to petition a court to terminate a pregnancy, with the fetus as defendant, the inhumanity of abortion itself would quickly come to light as the prosecutors tried to argue that the fetus was "guilty" of something that merited it's life being terminated. The Orwellian contortions that would generate would be interesting to watch.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 5:58pm
Justin (mail):
"The majority opinion in this decision would still stand, thus allowing a state to enact the substance of the federal legislation."

Sure. In other words, the federal law would still be struck down - a modest victory for NARAL, without the four dissenters having to rethink their CC jurisprudence at all.
4.18.2007 6:13pm
Bored Lawyer:

Of course an issue simply being simply "moral" does not trump federalism. But if it is an issue of homicide, which is what pro-lifers believe all abortion is, then yes, federalism is quite easily trumped. The Federal government is absolutely explicitly empowered to regulate against homicide.


I have to scratch my head at that one. I always thought the exact opposite was the case. Homicide/murder/manslaughter has always been thought of as the province of the states and not the federal govt. There is not and never has been a general FEDERAL murder or manslaughter statute. The federal statutes only apply if you do the act in a place "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" -- for example on an army base, U.S. embassy or consulate or other federal facility, or on the high seas. See 18 U.S.C. Sections 1111 and 1112, which outlaw murder and manslaughter, but only "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." The latter is defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 7 which lists various places that fit there.

(My personal favorite: "Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States." I am not kidding.)
4.18.2007 6:13pm
Qwinn:
Bored,

Fair enough, I defer to your knowledge of the matter.

In that case, by what provision has the federal government overturned state enacted bans against partial birth abortion?

Wasn't it because the laws didn't make room for exceptions for the health of the mother?

What tortured logic grants that the Federal government can override the state's right to legislate on the matter because the law does not explicitly prefer one life to another, but at the same time says that the Federal government has no right to legislate to protect one life even when no other life is at risk?

Don't take this as an attack on you. I'm sure such tortured logic does exist, and I'm sincerely asking if you know what it is.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 6:18pm
Steve:
Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

Wow. I mean, I knew we had some laws that are batshit insane, but still...
4.18.2007 6:21pm
Qwinn:
Here, let me ask my question a bit more clearly, in fact, I'll put it in the form of an argument:

I would argue that any federalist argument against a federal partial birth abortion ban would also invalidate the Federal government overturning any and all of the state bans of partial birth abortion that have so far been overturned.

Yes? No? And why did we not hear these same arguments when that happened? Well, at least, I didn't hear them. Not from the same people, anyway.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 6:22pm
Bored Lawyer:

Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

Wow. I mean, I knew we had some laws that are batshit insane, but still...


ROFL!!!!!!!!!
4.18.2007 6:26pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
I confess a dilemma here. I think federalism should apply to abortion. The courts, however, have (erroneously, I think) defined abortion as a fundamental right which states have been, at least up until now, virtually powerless to regulate. In many ways, the SCOTUS has regarded abortion as a more fundamental right than any right explicitly granted in the BOR.

Given that the court has basically scratched federalism on the abortion issue, is it wrong for people who see it as a life-and-death issue to pursue a non-federalist approach? I know this is Ron Paul's reasoning in voting for the PBA ban.
4.18.2007 6:36pm
Qwinn:
Joe - yep, that's basically what I'm saying. Personally, I very much like the way this commenter put it over at
Brendan Loy's blog:


Oh, that's rich. I cannot believe the Respondents raised a Commerce Clause argument. How hypocritical. Bending and stretching the constitution to its limit is what gave us Roe, and now that Congress' powers are construed broad enough to ban certain medical procedures, they want to go all strict constructionist on us.

Albeit, being the federalist that I am, I admit that the Commerce Clause previous to its freedom-rending gutting by the Court 1940s infra probably wouldn't permit the PBA, but folks, we're a long way from 1940s. I'm not about to give up a broad Commerce power when it suits my interests unless the Roe lobby is willing to give up its precious Penumbra. We take the cards we're dealt. So don't tell me I can't have my own pet penumbra to save the lives of half-born babies. Alls fair in love and lax constitutional interpretation.


[glenn] Heh. Indeed. [/glenn]

Qwinn
4.18.2007 6:44pm
Bored Lawyer:
Qwinn:

You need to read the Constitution.

The federal govt. is supposed to be a govt. of limited powers - the Constitution lists the specific areas that Congress can regulate.

The states, on the other hand, have a general police power to regulate anything.

This is how the Constitution was understood for many years. If Congress passed a law that was not within its power, this was thought to be unconstitutional -- not because it violated anyone's rights, but because the federal govt. had exceeded its power.

Around the time of the the Depression it was discovered that the clause permitting Congress to regulate "commerce among the states" could be stretched to justify just about anything. Since then, there has been a lively debate as to just how far Congress's power goes.

Apart from the power to do regulate something, there is also the Bill of Rights. This is a limit on Congressional power -- even if the regulation is within the powers granted to Congress. This is supposed to protect individual rights and applies even if the law is within Congress's power. So, for example, Congress has the right to "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States." So counterfeiting can be a federal crime. But if the federal govt. wants to punish someone for counterfeiting, the Fifth Amendment says you have to grant him "due process of law" -- notice of what he did wrong, a trial, a chance to confront the witnesses against him, etc.

Until the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was held to apply only to the federal govt. and not the states. The Fourteenth Amendment then provided a FEDERAL right against the states, at least as to certain things -- due process of law, equal protection of the laws.

At first, only a few rights were held to be encompassed in the 14th Amendment. Later, almost all of the Bill of Rights has been held "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment against the States.

Finally, in more recent times, relatively "new" rights -- such as the right to an abortion -- were discovered to reside in the Constitution, and included in the "due process" clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. This too remains highly controversial.

The point is: as to the federal govt, there are two levels of constitutional review: (1) is Congress acting within its enumerated powers and (2) are any individual rights being violated.

As to the States, only (2) applies. But (2) is a FEDERAL right which indiviudals have against the States. So the right to an abortion, which as of Roe v. Wade is a Fourteenth Amendment right, is a federal right against the States.

(The above is oversimplified and biased, but should do.)
4.18.2007 6:46pm
Qwinn:
Bored,

Thank you for the explanation, though I was pretty much aware of all that :)

What I'm saying doesn't really argue against any of that. What I'm saying echoes the commenter I quoted in my last post... which is that no one who can support Roe has any right to claim federalism. If you're going to allow for "penumbras" in one case, you better get used to it.

Like that commenter - and in light of the arguments you and others raised here - I would also have to agree that a strict constructionist reading would not permit the PBA. But also, as he said, we're a long way from the time when such a strict constructionist reading was in place. I'll be more than happy to drop the PBA ban as soon as others are ready to drop Roe.

And by the way, I do understand what you're trying to say here (and you're right, it is way biased). You're claiming that the argument against the PBA ban is based on the 10th, whereas the argument supporting Roe is in the 14th. My answer is - so? The 14th can and should apply just as well to the half born children being killed, and the argument that enabled the 14th to support Roe still required those "penumbras" to overwhelm the 10th as a prerequisite.

Really, no matter how hard you try, you -can't- have it both ways and remain consistent. When Roe is acknowledged and overturned on it's flagrant anti-federalist basis, no one will be happier than I to overturn the PBA ban as well. (I put the "and overturned" in italics because it's my experience that everyone is willing to concede that Roe is horrible law completely unsupportable on any legitimate constitutional grounds, but half the population still insists it would be anti-constitutional to overturn it anyway. Talk about scratching your head).

Qwinn
4.18.2007 7:02pm
Steve:
Oh, that's rich. I cannot believe the Respondents raised a Commerce Clause argument. How hypocritical.

But did the Respondents raise a Commerce Clause argument? Justice Thomas says they didn't. This blog post says they didn't. I sure don't think they did.
4.18.2007 7:03pm
libertarian soldier (mail):
Steve, for your amusement you should check out Article 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 114. DUELING
Any person subject to this chapter who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting a duel, or who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the fact promptly to the proper authority, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
4.18.2007 7:07pm
Bored Lawyer:
Qwinn:

I don't think what is wrong with Roe v. Wade is a federalism issue. What's wrong is that it is an invented right that appears nowhere in the Constitution. That is the case regardless of whether we are talking about the States or the Federal Govt.

OTOH, there is no question that the 14th Amendment does grant some federal rights against the States. "Due process of law" is one thing it explicitly grants. A state cannot throw you in jail without a trial -- if it does your federal rights have been violated, and a federal court could intervene.
4.18.2007 7:11pm
Bored Lawyer:
One other point: a hypocrite isn't always wrong, even if he is a hypocrite.

Many conservatives do indeed believe in "strict construction" and would overturn Roe v. Wade in a minute. Scalia and Thomas certainly would. That means the States would be free to ban abortion.

The interesting question is this: would Scalia and Thomas uphold a FEDERAL ban on abortion? Acc. to Thomas (and sometimes Scalia, although he has been all over the map on this one), Congress is one of limited powers. So what in the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate abortion?
4.18.2007 7:15pm
Bored Lawyer:

Steve, for your amusement you should check out Article 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 114. DUELING
Any person subject to this chapter who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting a duel, or who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the fact promptly to the proper authority, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct


What if you are dueling on a pile of guano the President says belongs to the U.S.? (See above).
4.18.2007 7:17pm
Qwinn:
I don't think what is wrong with Roe v. Wade is a federalism issue. What's wrong is that it is an invented right that appears nowhere in the Constitution.

I'm missing the difference, I'm afraid. The 10th says that anything not in the Constitution (such as "an invented right that appears nowhere in the Constitution") is the provision of the States. It's up to the States to determine if the people in that State have a right to it or not.

"Due process of law" is one thing it explicitly grants. A state cannot throw you in jail without a trial -- if it does your federal rights have been violated, and a federal court could intervene.

Okay, and getting back to my original argument - once the personhood of the unborn is granted, would this not protect them as well? Or is being thrown in jail considered an infringement of your rights, but being dismembered and decapitated is not?

Qwinn
4.18.2007 7:18pm
Steve:
What if you are dueling on a pile of guano the President says belongs to the U.S.?

Then I'd say you really stepped in it.
4.18.2007 7:21pm
Qwinn:
Bored,

It all depends on if the fetus is granted personhood, in my opinion, in which case all those same arguments that are being used to support Roe apply, only moreso, because instead of some nebuluous right to anything that could possibly, potentially affect a mother's "health", we're talking about an act specifically designed to terminate a person's life, with a 100% fatality rate in the case of every successful abortion.

In my opinion, that invalidates the comparison. If a ban on abortions yielded the death of the mother in 100% of cases, maybe we could consider them two sides of the same coin.

Let's put it this way. I think an argument that the Constitution contains a "penumbra" that allows it to protect life (based on the 5th, and the 14th, but hell, the overall tenor of the thing) is a hell of a lot more believable and obvious than the penumbra that Roe depends upon.

If you're squeamish about that, tell me this. Let's say that those evil Christianist monsters that make Sully wet his bed at night decide that, in their state, murder is no longer illegal. In fact, genocide is no longer illegal. And in that state, it's perfectly legal to kill whomever you wish. And people start doing so. Do you believe the federal government would have no right to interfere?

If you believe they would have the power to interfere, then whatever you base that on, I would put forth the same argument to justify a federal partial birth abortion ban. And I don't believe that it requires hypocrisy in order to do so.

The question, as it always has, depends on the personhood of the infant.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 7:32pm
Qwinn:
By the way, yes, I realize I changed my argument somewhat. Earlier, I said that I'd agree that a strict constructionist approach would not permit the PBA ban. But, when you put the question straightforwardly as you did, and after giving it some thought, I return to the opinion that it would be justified even by strict constructionist standards.

And I think you would hold the same. If a state adopted sharia law and legalized stoning gays, for example. You would have no trouble at all finding grounds for the federal government to interfere (rightly), would you? And it's really not a "penumbra". I don't think it would be a stretch at all to say that a strict constructionist interpretation of the 5th, the 14th, etc. would give the federal govt. the right to interfere in such a case. And since I believe in the personhood of the fetus (and I am agnostic, by the way), I don't consider the two situations to be materially different.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 7:49pm
JSA (mail):
Even if we all agree it would be hypocritical, or at least inconsistent, for NARAL et al. to challenge the PBA on commerce clause ground, that's no reason for them not to. The argument is only really inconsistent with their Roe - based arguments on a general principles, approach to the Constitution, level.
I would think that the lawyers would want to present every argument that could possibly succeed. Any inconsistency between the Commerce Clause and Roe arguments in this case would be much less than in, to take a recent example, Whorton v. Bockting , where respondent unsuccessfully argued that the Court's decision in Crawford was either (1) an old rule existing at the time or (2) a 'watershed' rule of criminal procedure altering bedrock understandings of fairness. Possible logical inconsistencies between two positions should not preclude lawyers from arguing both, especially when the positions are not directly in conflict.

The dueling statute isn't so amusing and trivial, dueling was a big deal around here about 200 years ago (see Hamilton and Burr).

My favorite amusing statute is 28 U.S.C. 411(b):


[United States] Reports printed prior to June 12, 1926, shall not be furnished the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force.

If anyone can explain the purpose of this one to me, I will be quite amazed.
4.18.2007 7:56pm
Qwinn:
Even if we all agree it would be hypocritical, or at least inconsistent, for NARAL et al. to challenge the PBA on commerce clause ground, that's no reason for them not to.

Right. I'm sure pro-lifers, and conservatives in general, will be granted the "it's okay to be hypocritical and inconsistent" waiver any day now.

Just damn.

Qwinn
4.18.2007 8:30pm
JamesWN (mail):


Okay, and getting back to my original argument - once the personhood of the unborn is granted, would this not protect them as well? Or is being thrown in
jail considered an infringement of your rights, but being dismembered and decapitated is not?


The crucial difference which would bar exercise of any Section 5 power under the Fourteenth Amendment, at least in so far as private clinics were concerned, is the lack of state action.
In United States v. Morrison the court summarily rejected the federal government's attempt to defend WAVA (Violence Against Women Act) as valid Section 5 legislation. First, under the court's caselaw the evil to be redressed must be state action resulting in denial of equal protection, and even if that threshold question is answered in the affirmative, there must still be congruence and proportionality between the evil to be redressed and the means to be employed.
A federal law against private abortions would probably fail both tests, since private conduct by itself doesn't violate the Constitution, and the fetus itself, even if Roe and Casey were overruled, would not necessarily qualify as a protected person for constitutional purposes.
Overruling the holding in Roe and Casey would eliminate the penumbral right of the women to terminate a pregnancy but would not by its own grant the fetus more rights enforceable by Section 5 legislation.
4.19.2007 2:14am
PubliusFL:
JamesWN: "The crucial difference which would bar exercise of any Section 5 power under the Fourteenth Amendment, at least in so far as private clinics were concerned, is the lack of state action. In United States v. Morrison the court summarily rejected the federal government's attempt to defend WAVA (Violence Against Women Act) as valid Section 5 legislation. First, under the court's caselaw the evil to be redressed must be state action resulting in denial of equal protection, and even if that threshold question is answered in the affirmative, there must still be congruence and proportionality between the evil to be redressed and the means to be employed."

Ironically, the case for federal action would be easiest to make if the federal government went all the way and classified abortion as homicide. The argument could be made that any state which does not include abortion in its homicide laws is denying the unborn the equal protection of the laws, just as it would violate equal protection if it did not classify killing Blacks or women as homicide.

The biggest barrier to justifying federal abortion laws under the 14th Amendment is probably the amendment's explicit use of the word "born" to describe those entitled to its protections.
4.19.2007 3:00am