Listening to a self identified "constitutional teacher" speak in favor of Ohio's 'Heartbeat Bill,' based upon a fetus's constitutional right to life recently, I was most struck that the 'constitutional teacher' completely neglected to acknowledge or address any constitutional rights of those who own the womb in which a fetus might be. She completely ignored the reality that the free expression of individual will constitutionally ends where it begins to infringe upon, and compromise, another persons individual constitutional rights. She neglected the underlying balance of a fetus's right to life against the womb owner's right to life, which includes the privacy right of controlling one's own body, and choice of who can or can't impose themselves upon that body.
The 'Heartbeat Bill' is entirely predicated upon an organic process without recognizable cognition that would constitute personhood, like the right of a growing plant to exist wherever it wants to grow. This ultimately begs the question of what constitutes personhood in this situation. A fetus is never issued a social security number or granted any other form of individual identification evidencing individual personhood. Personhood is never recognized until live birth when a birth certificate can be issued, and identification of personhood is never granted without proof of live birth. Upon what constitutional right, then, can a fetus claim the right of occupancy in the womb of someone who doesn't want that fetus in the womb, other than the right of those who claim to be pro life, in respect to a fetus, to demand that the rights of those whose wombs they want to commandeer to forcibly harbor a fetus to delivery be put to death?
What constitutional right do those within society who want to force some to gestate a fetus to delivery, based upon their own individual ethical, moral, philosophical, or religious views, have to violate the different values and religious views of others, and, to enslave another person's womb by forcing it to labor gestating a fetus without identifiable individual personhood? The owner of a womb is always a legitimately registered individual with identifiable personhood, possessing defined constitutional rights, which a fetus without cognition never is. If a society with a questionable degree of concern for a fetus is not prepared to provide a surrogate womb to gestate a fetus in; in laboratory settings or otherwise, should someone not want that fetus in their womb, that society should not have a say in whether the owner of the womb must labor to gestate that fetus or not. If such a society is not willing to accept responsibility for the care and nurturing of a fetus gestated to delivery by someone who isn't prepared to, or doesn't want to care and nurture for that fetus after birth, then that society should not have a say in whether another is required to grant occupancy of a fetus in their womb, and whether that someone must produce a life they believe will unduly suffer, or cause others to unjustly suffer. Where in the constitution does it say that some in society can grant personhood to a fetus that the constitution and congress has not granted, and impose their religious views into the bodies of others? Producing a life that will unduly suffer is against the religious views of many.
If the 'Heartbeat Bill' becomes established law, anywhere, it becomes a falling domino issue involving every brain dead newborn, or accident victim, or severe stroke victim, whose heart still beats but has no cognitive functioning; (the living dead,) destined to be forced onto bodily life support until a body's cells atrophy and decay away. It would argue that family and physicians could no longer decide to 'pull the plug' and stop the heart of the brain dead victim, ultimately costing someone great emotional trauma, and everyone huge sums of money to keep hearts without heads beating. In the end, the 'pro life' mantra is the 'pro death' of others mantra. The 'pro life' meme is far less a legitimate religious view than it is a Corporate Right propaganda meme designed to deceptively rouse voter support of the easily manipulated for the predatory policies of corporate reactionaries, and is formulated as a religious war by some against the religious views of others, threatening religious freedom and the separation of church and state.