On the other hand, Teresa S. Collett, a pro-life lawyer, and professor at St. Thomas University Law School commented:
“The RHA represents a willful and tragic exaggeration of abortion rights. The new law converted a woman’s liberty interest in terminating her pre-viable pregnancy into a novel right to kill near-term unborn children and inexplicably extended this right to criminal assailants The RHA unconstitutionally authorizes the killing of near-term children in utero based on a ‘right’ that finds no warrant in Roe v. Wade.”
“People believe that women’s reproductive rights and the recognition of rights for near-term children are mutually exclusive. They are not,” Collett added.
The plaintiffs are requesting the court to acknowledge First Amendment rights for women whose unborn children are killed by assailants and to clarify dangerous ambiguities in the RHA that affect women. They are also requesting the court to affirm existing, but previously unrecognized rights for near-term unborn children and children who survive abortion.
