We must support the creation and well-being of families while respecting the basic human rights of every member of the family, regardless of their age.

In the near future, all human beings—including pre-born children—may be protected by the Florida Constitution.

The originalist case for unborn personhood, published in the January 2024 print edition of National Review

Prof. Robert George and Josh Craddock write that national pro-life legislation would be an appropriate remedy for state deprivation of the equal-protection rights to which unborn children are constitutionally entitled.

Prof. Robert George and Josh Craddock write to the Wall Street Journal to argue that the 14th Amendment extended “the equal protection of the laws” to “any person,” including the unborn.

Josh Hammer and Josh Craddock argue that Dobbs is not the end of the pro-life struggle and that each level and branch of government should act to ensure constitutional personhood for unborn children.

Until Roe’s first and foundational error is addressed directly, America’s abortion culture can never be fully uprooted. In the aftermath of Dobbs, we must press toward total abolition.

Robert P. George and Josh Craddock reply to Jonathan Adler on Congress’s authority to protect unborn persons.

Robert P. George and Josh Craddock argue that, as blue states enact legislation to permit abortion to the very point of birth, Congress must step in to enforce constitutional rights for the unborn.

In the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned this summer, pro-life legislators must act to protect human life in the womb. They should introduce legislation to recognize the personhood of the unborn, strip the ability of federal courts to hear challenges to this recognition, create a private right of action to help enforce anti-abortion policy, and use the taxing power to cripple the abortion industry.

Established wisdom tells us that even if the Supreme Court reversed course on abortion, each state would be allowed to decide whether or not it should be permitted. But is that really true?

Whelan, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that, as an originalist matter, the question of abortion must be determined through the democratic process in the states. Having recently debated Whelan on this topic, I think none of his three objections to Finnis withstand close scrutiny.

Americans need not accept an interminable status quo of indifference toward the rights of the child, due either to the timidity of our political elite or to the presumption of our judiciary class. The ‘Lincoln Proposal’ offers pro-life presidents the clearest way to confront Roe v. Wade’s jurisprudence of violence and doubt and to protect the constitutional rights of preborn persons.

The international human rights project stands at a crossroads between the doctrine of natural rights espoused by the Declaration of Independence and a progressive view that treats human rights as the pragmatic result of historical processes and power disparities.

The Democratic party’s new defense of abortion on grounds of morality rather than necessity is eerily reminiscent of the transformation in Southern views on slavery between the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

The deconstruction of past heroes is tied to an assumption of moral progress and evolution that is, for Christians, theoretically untenable and empirically false. Hence why C.S. Lewis encourages us to read old books: to transcend the unseen prejudices of the present age. This was, I thought, part of the reason for the College’s emphasis on the great books of the Western tradition.

Recent just war theory discussions have emphasized the just cause and right intention prongs of jus ad bellum, but have offered only cursory analysis of the legitimate authority prong in the American context. This article argues that legitimate authority depends in part on domestic law and that the sovereign's war powers must be exercised in accordance with the rule of law. In the American context, where sovereignty is divided, the Constitution's allocation of war powers should guide analysis. The article provides a survey of executive and congressional powers over war and hostilities, and then applies those legal rules to conflicts in Libya, Syria, and North Korea.

Does the Constitution really only protect “walking-around persons”? What if overturning Roe meant not simply punting the issue to the states, but rather acknowledging a constitutionally guaranteed right to life for unborn children?

Today the world commemorates St. Patrick’s Day with revelries, drunkenness and cartoonish leprechauns. But the great evangelist known for Christianizing Ireland in the fifth century deserves better remembrance. In fact, Patrick is a model of Christian virtue to be emulated.

Two Yale law professors say religious liberty should not be accommodated in “complicity” cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowers. Their argument fails to recognize that such accommodations are a traditional and necessary part of the American legal framework.