This assumes that the anti-abortion laws are based on the fetus is a person, as opposed to some moral obligation on women to produce a child once her body starts making one that compels her to complete it.
What citizenship does this fetus have (assuming the mother is a US citizen on US soil)? From my understanding it would appear under US law none as that is generally a function of birth location in the US, though there are other means. So does the fetus possess no citizenship? If so what is the legal status of that person in our nation? Undocumented alien (aka illegal person)? Would not such a person need a passport to cross international boundaries? I guess this is mixing up federal law and state law, but if the reds get their way it I’m sure fetal personhood would be part of federal law also.
Clearly not a person born or naturalized in the US. Also lacking any visa, must be an illegal alien and subject to immediate deportation.
My sister was born in January one year and my father took her as a dependent for the preceding year. I used to think he had done something illegal, but I guess not. This was before you needed an SSN. Maybe you can apply for one as soon as the egg is fertilized.
Even under the most extreme circumstances, an unborn baby is never going to have all the same rights that anybody else does. This is partly due to practicalities. Taking the OP’s passport question, for example–a passport requires a photograph. No photograph is possible for an unborn baby, and a sonogram is a photograph. Therefore, an unborn baby, even if given all citizenship rights, etc., will never have a passport.
There are already exceptions for infant photos, not that they don’t need them but some of the rules of how it must be done are relaxed due to an infants inability to understand and perform. So the photo/sonogram issue I’m not seeing as a biggie, however to get a passport one needs to be a citizen, which it does not appear a fetus would qualify. If so this would prohibit pregnant women from crossing boarders as their fetus would not have one.
I really don’t want to threadshit and fight the hypothetical here, that’s not my intent at all, but it’s futile to ask what rights and obligations attach to an entity that cannot claim rights, enter into any agreements, or show any conscious behavior. It can only lead to nonsense results.
That’s why I don’t think fetal personhood laws will ever really materialize. The whole debate about “a fetus is a person” was really designed to rationalize why it’s OK to ban abortion. Now that SCOTUS allowed states to say “we’re banning abortion because fuck you, that’s why,” there’s no longer any need to make law that pretends a fetus is a person.
On the outside chance that someone did see fit to make a go of a questionable legal theory, fetal personhood would probably be the same kind of legal fiction that we assign to corporations. Corporations can own things, but they can’t be issued a passport or be thrown in jail or whatever else would be inconvenient to the boards of corporations.
Likewise, a fetal “person” would be a special sort of person that possessed only one right, the right not to be killed.
I don’t know the rules in effect when your sister was born, but currently ( and for the last 30+ years ), there had to be a live birth before the end of December 31 to qualify as a dependent for the year ending December 31. Even though the costs associated with a birth on Dec 31, 2021 are almost exactly the same as the costs associated with a birth on January 1, 2022. There is similarly no difference in cost between a live birth and a stillbirth on December 31,2022 , but the IRS website specifically says you may not claim a stillborn child as a dependent.
And what happens when the husband of a pregnant woman dies and leaves an insurance policy to be divided between his children? Let’s say there are two children who are already born. Currently , in many states the insurance policy would be divided by three when and if there is a live birth. If there is not a live birth, it is divided in half. What happens with fetal personhood if there is a miscarriage - did the fetus already inherit and that share goes to the fetus’ heir(s)? Or does it still get divided in half?
Although I’m pretty sure there is some small number of people who would be in favor of fetal personhood, I don’t think there is any way such a thing will actually happen. There are too many laws/rules/regulations that will have to be changed. Also, most of those people who talk about fetal personhood don’t really believe in it anyway, whether they realize it or not.
If it becomes a fact of US life that life begins at conception, every age-dependent right and privilege will have to be moved back by 9 months. That means people will be able to drive, drink, vote, marry, enter into contracts, and begin receiving Social Security checks 9 months before the previous deadlines. Life expectancy figures will take a sudden lurch. People with a mandatory retirement age will have to make changes to their life plans. A few people awaiting trial for statutory rape or other crimes against minors will be off the hook.
Imagine the chaos among those who believe in astrology. You’re not a Leo, you’re a…lemme look this up.
Though would not they acquire natural born status once born? Such a think I think can already happen, a person who was naturalized was later found to be born in the US.
In that case, the naturalization is revoked as it is of no legal effect. Would you happen to have a link to a source for that actually having happened?