This opinion is seriously misinformed, legally. If you actually took the pain to read arguments from Finnis, Craddock and others who make this argument. You are building a strawman here, saying what none of them say. Nobody is saying that the court has to recognize an active "duty to protect" anyone's life. The point is, since all states (even blue states) ALREADY have laws on the books protecting the lives of born people (i.e. homicide statutes), such laws would be struck down by the court as discriminatory since they exclude a certain class of people (e.g. fetuses). And since no state would want it's murder laws struck down, they'll have to amend those laws.
Of course there are OTHER, actual issues with this approach (eg. loopholes, blue states prosecutors refusing to comply, etc.), the court getting tangled up in endless cases over who else is and isn't a person, what is a legitimate use of "self defense" and that there is no one currently on the supreme court who wants to go that far, I think overall the idea is pretty unlikely. But it is possible, and also doesn't preclude other means of establishing personhood under 14th Amendment (e.g. a congressional act or statute declaring personhood, for example, I think is far more likely).
This opinion is seriously misinformed, legally. If you actually took the pain to read arguments from Finnis, Craddock and others who make this argument. You are building a strawman here, saying what none of them say. Nobody is saying that the court has to recognize an active "duty to protect" anyone's life. The point is, since all states (even blue states) ALREADY have laws on the books protecting the lives of born people (i.e. homicide statutes), such laws would be struck down by the court as discriminatory since they exclude a certain class of people (e.g. fetuses). And since no state would want it's murder laws struck down, they'll have to amend those laws.
Of course there are OTHER, actual issues with this approach (eg. loopholes, blue states prosecutors refusing to comply, etc.), the court getting tangled up in endless cases over who else is and isn't a person, what is a legitimate use of "self defense" and that there is no one currently on the supreme court who wants to go that far, I think overall the idea is pretty unlikely. But it is possible, and also doesn't preclude other means of establishing personhood under 14th Amendment (e.g. a congressional act or statute declaring personhood, for example, I think is far more likely).