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.

The Supreme Court’s leaked majority opinion from an abortion case; The legal history of abortion in America and the originalist case for prenatal personhood; How to build a culture of life after Roe

Collected here in one place, CHOOSE LIFE offers reasonable pro-life responses from leading experts in their respective fields.

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.

Josh Craddock explains how an originalist reading of the 14th amendment protects an unborn person as a “person” within the language on the Constitution and their right to equal protection.

Educating listeners about constitutional personhood for the preborn.

Dr. Chad Pecknold and Josh Craddock join the Life, Liberty, and Law podcast to discuss the Lincoln Proposal and correcting Roe's first and foundational error.

Josh Craddock explains how an originalist reading of the 14th amendment protects an unborn person as a “person” within the language on the Constitution and their right to equal protection.

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.

Josh Craddock explains how an originalist reading of the 14th amendment protects an unborn person as a “person” within the language on the Constitution and their right to equal protection.

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.

Alexandra DeSanctis and Josh Craddock join the Life, Liberty, and Law podcast to discuss the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, and pro-life jurisprudence.

America was founded with a commitment to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So how is it that America remains so confused about the full scope of human rights? And why are abortion activists going so far as to embrace John C. Calhoun's pro-slavery logic—treating abortion as if it weren't simply an unfortunate but tolerable practice, but instead callously promoting abortion as a "positive good" for America and all developed nations?

John Marshall Fellow 2019 - Claremont Institute

Fellow 2019 - James Wilson Institute

Pro-life advocates regularly hear the claim "Abortion is Constitutional" in order to justify the killing of preborn children.

In this video, the former Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explains why abortion is unconstitutional, and preborn children are entitled to constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment.

During Josh’s first year at Harvard Law School, there was a “free speech wall” in the student lounge where students could leave messages about what Harvard should start doing, continue doing, or stop doing.