The woke left-wing outrage mob is sharpening their pitchforks in response to this monumental, life-saving Supreme Court ruling

Photo by Lara Jameson from Pexels

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade it was clear there was still a long fight ahead.

Now pro-life groups are working across the country to protect the sanctity of life.

But the woke left-wing outrage mob is sharpening their pitchforks in response to this monumental, life-saving Supreme Court ruling.

Nearly 100% of biologists agree that “life begins at fertilization”

The foundational argument for pro-life advocates is that life begins at conception, and should be protected from that moment. 

And that view isn’t unique to those who lobby to protect the unborn.

According to a 2021 study published by the National Library of Medicine, the vast majority of scientists share the view that life “begins at fertilization.” 

The survey covered 5,577 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world. 

Out of those surveyed, 96% of the scientists agreed.

This fact was the center of a lawsuit at the Alabama Supreme Court over the treatment of embryos created by in vitro fertilization. 

James LePage and Emily LePage, et al v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine sought to determine whether embryos are protected by law. 

And pro-life advocates got a major win in the case.

“All unborn children, regardless of location” should be protected

“All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death,” Associate Justice Jay Mitchell wrote at the outcome of the case.

The Justices were charged to decide whether the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to embryos.

The judge went on to note that the Court was merely there to determine whether the physical location of the child determined its rights to be protected. 

Noting that the “parties disagree [on] whether there exists an unwritten exception to that rule for unborn children who are not physically located ‘in utero.’” 

The majority opinion in this case ruled that “the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of location.” 

This will undoubtedly result in a major upheaval in the IVF industry that is often criticized for discarding unsatisfactory embryos after genetic testing. 

But the ruling might have farther-reaching consequences than IVF.

Pro-Abortion groups are concerned of the impacts on birth control

Lila Rose, a Pro-Life advocate at Live Action, celebrated the win on social media. 

“Proud of the Alabama Supreme Court for acknowledging the science and using basic reason and fairness to decide that a baby conceived via IVF should have the same legal protections as a baby conceived naturally,” she wrote.

Pro-abortion Democrats were taken aback by the ruling, and claimed that it could be used to target other industries that give people the choice to end the life of the unborn. 

In an opinion column at The Washington Post, Ruth Marcus warned of the implications for the ruling, pointing out that this would place restrictions on abortion clinics, and might impact their ability “to dispose of” embryos that are not selected for birth. 

“The longer-term danger—indeed the apparent longer-term goal—is to raise and expand the definition of unborn personhood, to go after birth control methods…” she wrote. 

Not everyone in the pro-life movement opposes the use of contraception, but many do. 

Some argue that the chemicals used to kill the embryo at fertilization are harmful not only to the unborn child but also the expectant mothers. 

US Political Daily will keep you updated on any developments to this ongoing story.