Science proves that Roe v. Wade is wrong. Mankind does not start at 20 weeks: Purple Rose

Two little boys celebrated their first birthdays this summer, one in Minnesota and one in Alabama – miles apart, but with similar stories. Both born in week 21, Richard Hutchinson and Curtis means were 131 and 132 days premature, respectively.

These small but resilient babies weighed only ounces when they were born and fit into the palms of their mothers. They both exceeded all medical expectations and were recognized by Guinness World Records as the most premature baby to survive; Curtis now holds the title.

Their stories, though record-breaking, are becoming more common as advances in medicine move the age back where a child can survive outside of its mother’s womb. Similarly, advances in technology confirm that a prenatal child is a human at the time of conception – not magical for 21 weeks – a fact discussed Wednesday in the Supreme Court.

Richard Hutchinson in Minnesota in June 2020.

Richard Hutchinson in Minnesota in June 2020.

Unconstitutional, unscientific, immoral

Wednesday, the court heard Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The law under control, passed by the Mississippi in 2018, restricts abortion after 15 weeks, except in cases of medical necessity or severe fetal abnormality.

Today, the state allows abortion up to 20 weeks – just a week before Richard and Curtis were born. After five decades and 62 million babies killed, it is far over time for the Supreme Court to admit that it so-called viability standard established by Roe v. Wade – which forbids states from banning abortions before the unborn child can survive outside the womb – is unscientific, unconstitutional, and morally wrong.

What did Roe v. Wade really say ?: The landmark decision on abortion rights, explained

Richard Hutchinson in June 2021.

Richard Hutchinson in June 2021.

This case makes headlines – side by side Texas’ SB 8 Heartbeat Act As it finally calls into question Roe’s viability standard. A decision in favor of the Mississippi is likely to allow states to pass legislation that protects the prenatal in a way that has been impossible since Roe.

USA TODAY’s Carli Pierson: My great-grandmother died of an illegal abortion. Her story may be one you will soon know.

Abortion activists claim that a baby’s humanity begins with her ability to survive outside the womb; yet science and reason tell us that her humanity is present at the moment of conception.

My organization, Direct, one of the country’s leading human rights organizations, along with leading OBGYNs and medical professionals, has released an advanced animation of a baby’s development in utero. Baby Olivia depicts the moment life begins and beyond to show the pre-human humanity through each stage of development, complete with beating heart, brain waves, fingers and toes.

This glimpse of early human life demonstrates its true beginnings at conception, as Olivia becomes a unique individual with her gender, ethnicity, hair and eye color – among other characteristics – immediately determined. In nine weeks, Olivia can suck on her thumb and swallow.

I do not want to shorten my baby’s life: After my unborn son’s fatal diagnosis, the doctors seemed determined to change my ‘choice’

Olivia’s continued growth over time makes it clear that Roe’s “viability” is precedent arbitrary and unscientific. Even pro-Roe in the past Justice Sandra Day O’Connor acknowledged that “viability” is a shaky, conditional line: “As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability moves further back toward conception.”

Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action and author of "Fighting for Life."

Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action and author of “Fighting for Life.”

Addiction does not deny humanity

Not only is it logically inconsistent and unscientific, but it is also immoral to use the arbitrary standard of viability to determine a child’s legal status and ultimately worth it.

As children, we were each dependent on others for our existence, our nourishment, and our survival. Why should a prenatal child’s physical dependence on his mother determine whether or not he is protected by law against the deadly violence of abortion?

Why should the court rule that life in 15 weeks is not a life worth saving, but that life in 20 weeks is? There is nothing “potential” about Richard’s humanity at 21 weeks that has existed since conception. Curtis’ life was no less valuable a few weeks before he was born. He was no less human a few days before he took his first breath. And he is no more important now, on his first birthday, than he was the first moment he spent in his mother’s womb.

Baby Olivia is a state-of-the-art animated depiction of a baby's development in the womb, showing each developmental stage.

Baby Olivia is a state-of-the-art animated depiction of a baby’s development in the womb, showing each developmental stage.

Richard, Curtis and others like them force abortion advocates to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: There is no difference between a 21-week-old baby born prematurely and one who stays inside his or her mother’s womb.

The degree of dependence of a child does not determine its humanity. If anything, the more vulnerable a child is, the more legal protection they need and deserve.

So regardless of premature or “pre-viability” status, human infants, born or in-utero, should be entitled to the protection of the same laws that protect the rest of us.

It’s time to trust science and embrace life.

Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action and author of “Fighting for Life.” Follow her on Twitter: @LilaGraceRose

You can read different opinions from ours The Council of Contributors and other authors on Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To reply to a column, please send a comment to

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court on Mississippi Abortion Ban: The standard of viability for roe fails

Follow us on Google News

Disclaimers for

All the information on this website – – is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (, is strictly at your own risk. will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website.

Give a Comment