{"id":17585,"date":"2012-06-08T00:32:41","date_gmt":"2012-06-08T04:32:41","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=17585"},"modified":"2013-04-03T21:55:13","modified_gmt":"2013-04-04T01:55:13","slug":"court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/","title":{"rendered":"Court rules twins conceived after father’s death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Using her deceased husband’s frozen sperm, Karen Capato conceived twins through in vitro fertilization and gave birth to them eighteen months after his death. The Supreme Court of the United States\u00a0then\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0in a unanimous decision that her\u00a0twins would not be eligible to receive his Social Security benefits under the intestacy laws of Florida because they were conceived after their father’s death.\"\"<\/p>\n

Reread that carefully. Did you catch it?\u00a0Conceived. <\/em>Although the definition of “conceived” as used by the Court is ambiguous (regarding fertilization or implantation), this\u00a0is not the typical language used by the Court when determining financial eligibility for pre-born human beings whose most basic\u00a0right to life<\/em>\u00a0is not\u00a0yet protected by the laws of this country.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Unborn child<\/p><\/div>\n

Although the\u00a0oral arguments<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0opinion<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0Astrue v. Capato<\/em>\u00a0mainly deal with the tautological definition of \u201cchild\u201d under the Social Security Act as amended in 1939, the Court overturned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and upheld the provision of the Social Security Act, citing Section 416(h)(2)(A): \u201cIn determining whether an applicant is the child \u2026 of [an] insured individual for the purpose of this subchapter,\u201d the Commissioner shall apply state intestacy law. In Florida, this\u00a0means that children conceived posthumously are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. According to the legal definition of \u201cchild\u201d presented in this case by the SSA, the Capato twins were not considered \u201cchildren\u201d eligible to receive benefits because they were\u00a0conceived<\/em>\u00a0after<\/em>\u00a0the death of their father. So, following this line of logic, if they were conceived\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0their father died, they would be considered \u201cchildren\u201d by definition of the SSA. The Court did not correct the definition or change it to the twins’ needing to be \u201cviable\u201d or \u201cborn\u201d before their father\u2019s death in order to be eligible – the only stipulation barring them was when they were\u00a0conceived<\/em>.<\/p>\n

So what does “conception” mean to the Court, anyway?<\/p>\n

Regardless of the outcome of the case, the use of the word \u201cconception\u201d is a subtle yet remarkable admission. One little word that means so much: conception<\/em> – not the former precedential language of \u201cpoint of viability,\u201d not \u201cbirth,\u201d but the point at which a new and unique individual <\/em>(or in this case two unique individuals) were created<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Now wait a minute – according to the Court, I thought a zygote\/embryo\/fetus was just a clump of cells or a blob of tissue up until \u201cviability\u201d and wasn\u2019t considered a person protected under the Fourteenth Amendment until birth – but now the Supreme Court is telling us that the\u00a0moment<\/em>\u00a0a \u201cblob of cells\u201d is\u00a0conceived<\/em>, it may be eligible to receive Social Security benefits? Okay, so a clump of cells can receive Social Security benefits, but a 12-week-old fetus does not have the right to its life…I got it. Wait…huh?!<\/p>\n

The majority opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is potentially (and inadvertently) a huge victory in the courtroom for pro-lifers across America. Since\u00a0Roe<\/em>, numerous decisions have been passed down upholding the “constitutionality” of abortion due to\u00a0the fact\u00a0the unborn are\u00a0not being considered persons until birth (or “viability”) and are therefore not protected by the laws of our country under the Fourteenth Amendment. Numerous battles have been fought in the country\u2019s highest Court to overturn the most controversial ruling in our nation\u2019s history and recognize the inherent right to life of the unborn. Time after time, however, the Supreme Court used cases such as\u00a0Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health<\/em>\u00a0(1982),\u00a0Webster v. Reproductive Health Services<\/em>\u00a0(1989), and\u00a0Planned Parenthood of South Eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey<\/em>\u00a0(1994) to vehemently uphold their decision in Roe:<\/p>\n

1. Consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by\u00a0Roe<\/em>\u00a0v.Wade,<\/em>\u00a0410 U.S. 113<\/a>, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of\u00a0stare decisis<\/em>\u00a0require that\u00a0Roe<\/em>‘s essential holding be retained and reaffirmed\u00a0as to each of its three parts: (1) a recognition of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it\u00a0without undue interference\u00a0from the State,\u00a0whose previability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure; (2) a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman’s life or health; and (3) the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the\u00a0life of the fetus that may become a child. Pp. 1-27.<\/p>\n

-Justice O\u2019Connor in the majority opinion of\u00a0Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/a>\u00a0(emphasis mine)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This decision also brings us to an interesting point of contention that the Supreme Court will assuredly have to face as they embark down a treacherous slippery slope, as more and more cases challenge the (lack of) reasoning behind legalized abortion, particularly with the advancements in scientific technology showing the humanity of the unborn. In attempting to understand the logic behind the language of the abortion precedent in light of\u00a0Astrue<\/em>, why does it matter what date the children were conceived in relation to their father’s death if they are not “alive” (according to the Court\u2019s definition) until viability anyway? If the unborn are not entitled to their right to life if it<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Baby 7 weeks after conception<\/p><\/div>\n

interferes with a woman’s right to choose, why didn’t the Court use its previously established language of date of “viability” or “birth” to determine the outcome of this case? Is the Court finally realizing that when conception occurs, it is not just a \u201cclump of cells,\u201d but the creation of a unique new human being? Could\u00a0Astrue<\/em>\u00a0be the dawning of a new era in our nation\u2019s courtroom? What are the future implications from this sudden change of diction and break from the stare decisis<\/em>\u00a0interpretation by the Court?<\/p>\n

Through the Court’s admission of date of conception being vital (no pun intended) in determining eligibility for Social Security benefits, we as a country have taken \u201cone small step\u201d in the courtroom that could be the precursor to \u201cone giant leap\u201d for the unborn and recognition of their intrinsic right to life and personhood. In the majority opinion of\u00a0Roe,<\/em>\u00a0even\u00a0Justice Blackmun ceded<\/a> that \u201c[i]f this suggestion of personhood is established, the [Roe vs. Wade<\/em>] case, of course, collapses,\u00a0for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Well, Justice Blackmun, I don\u2019t think that \u201cnon-personhood persons\u201d can receive Social Security benefits, but according to the very Court you were a part of 39 years ago, simply being\u00a0conceived<\/em>\u00a0is all it takes.<\/p>\n

I hope to be a part of the generation that makes your admission become a reality, and with the help of your fellow successive justices, we are on the road to doing just that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The power of one little word buried in a court decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":132,"featured_media":12855,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nCourt rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The power of one little word buried in a court decision.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Live Action News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/veronika.johannsen.3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/03\/dreamstime_xs_10391912.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"321\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Veronika Johannsen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@VeronikaBeth\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Veronika Johannsen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Veronika Johannsen\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/2c43ff48430f52c14466cc0f6fc2e530\"},\"headline\":\"Court rules twins conceived after father’s death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement?\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\"},\"wordCount\":1184,\"commentCount\":3,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Opinion\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\",\"name\":\"Court rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court rules twins conceived after father’s death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"name\":\"Live Action News\",\"description\":\"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Live Action\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"width\":701,\"height\":710,\"caption\":\"Live Action\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/\",\"https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/2c43ff48430f52c14466cc0f6fc2e530\",\"name\":\"Veronika Johannsen\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7c2e8325e24f256f6a72ab71726af7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7c2e8325e24f256f6a72ab71726af7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Veronika Johannsen\"},\"description\":\"Veronika is a senior political science major at Texas A&M University, where she is involved with pro-life work both on and off-campus. After volunteering with the Coalition for Life, she became a sidewalk counselor and an officer in Pro-Life Aggies, and would one day like to have a career in law, protecting and defending life in all stages- from conception to natural death.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/veronika.johannsen.3\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/@VeronikaBeth\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/veronika-johannsen\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News","og_description":"The power of one little word buried in a court decision.","og_url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/","og_site_name":"Live Action News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","article_author":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/veronika.johannsen.3","article_published_time":"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":"480","height":"321","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/03\/dreamstime_xs_10391912.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Veronika Johannsen","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@VeronikaBeth","twitter_site":"@liveaction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Veronika Johannsen","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/"},"author":{"name":"Veronika Johannsen","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/2c43ff48430f52c14466cc0f6fc2e530"},"headline":"Court rules twins conceived after father’s death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement?","datePublished":"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00","dateModified":"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/"},"wordCount":1184,"commentCount":3,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Opinion"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/","name":"Court rules twins conceived after father's death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement? - Live Action News","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-06-08T04:32:41+00:00","dateModified":"2013-04-04T01:55:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/court-rules-twins-conceived-after-fathers-death-are-ineligible-for-benefits-a-step-forward-for-the-pro-life-movement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court rules twins conceived after father’s death are ineligible for benefits: a step forward for the pro-life movement?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","name":"Live Action News","description":"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization","name":"Live Action","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","width":701,"height":710,"caption":"Live Action"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/","https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/2c43ff48430f52c14466cc0f6fc2e530","name":"Veronika Johannsen","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7c2e8325e24f256f6a72ab71726af7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7c2e8325e24f256f6a72ab71726af7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Veronika Johannsen"},"description":"Veronika is a senior political science major at Texas A&M University, where she is involved with pro-life work both on and off-campus. After volunteering with the Coalition for Life, she became a sidewalk counselor and an officer in Pro-Life Aggies, and would one day like to have a career in law, protecting and defending life in all stages- from conception to natural death.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/veronika.johannsen.3","https:\/\/twitter.com\/@VeronikaBeth"],"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/veronika-johannsen\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17585"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/132"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17585\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}