Verna Williams

Verna Williams is a constitutional law professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where she also co-directs the Center for Race, Gender, and Social Justice.

The recent headline about the possible closure of Cincinnati's remaining abortion clinic, appearing along reports of yet another school shooting tragedy, highlights how very differently we consider gun and reproductive rights.

The Constitution protects both, but, as the law has developed, protections for the latter are receding while the former seems to be subject to no real regulation whatsoever. Why? In both areas, the state's interest in life is at stake. And, with respect to guns, there is no debate about whether life has, in fact, begun.

The New York Times reported last year that accidental shootings were the ninth-leading cause of death among children between the ages of 1 and 14. The death rate may be even higher, since such deaths are underreported, no doubt thanks to the NRA's successful effort to put the kibosh on firearms-related research. The gun lobby wants us to believe that accidental deaths of kids are freakish occurrences – that kids are more likely to choke on peanut butter sandwiches than die from being shot.

Even if they're right, which I doubt, so what?

Lucas Heagren's mom likely would find little solace in the gun lobby's rhetoric. The 3-year-old from Mt. Vernon, Ohio, found his dad's pistol under the couch and shot himself in the eye.

I'm concerned about Lucas and the hundreds of other children who, powerless against the allure of guns secreted in cabinets, under mattresses, on top of refrigerators, pull them from their hiding places and turn innocent playdates into unthinkable trauma.

Dr. Geoffrey Jackman and a team of researchers reported in Pediatrics that guns are irresistible to boys and that 80 percent of accidental shootings involve boys. What about protecting their lives?

In contexts other than abortion, we recognize the state's interest in life – particularly the life of children. It supports courts looking closely to determine which custody arrangement is best at times of divorce. It's lurking behind the guidelines for child support.

So, why not where guns are concerned?

States should be able to regulate guns in order to vindicate their interest in protecting life. What would that look like? Well, here I turn to Roe vs. Wade and the lessons in its history and interpretation.

That means, as long as a regulation didn't pose an undue burden on the right to bear arms, it would be constitutional.

States could then impose 24- to 48-hour waiting periods on gun purchases. They could ensure that potential gun owners are fully informed of the dangers guns pose to children and the best means of preventing accidental shootings. For good measure, potential purchasers should have to read accounts, view photos or videos featuring parents who lost their children in such accidents, so they clearly understand what's at stake. States also could regulate gun merchants, ensuring that they have a certain amount of training not only in the use of guns, but in gun safety, particularly with respect to children.

Why apply these rules across the board? After all, not every gun owner has a child. I would argue that the state's interest in life is so strong in this context that such regulations would still be permissible since guns get stolen or misplaced, and children visit uncles, noncustodial parents and friends.

To paraphrase Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester, who recorded a message for the anti-abortion forces rallied in Washington on Roe's anniversary: It is time to make these accidental deaths "a relic of the past."

"Human life is not an economic or political commodity, and no government on earth has the right to treat it that way," he said.

He's right. It's long past time to treat actual children's lives like they matter.