:The article examines the pro-life movement's efforts to advance the legal, moral, and political arguments for fetal personhood in the period following the Supreme Court's case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It begins with an overview of the efforts to define the fetus as a legal person prior to Casey, and proceeds to describe the opportunity created for pro-life forces by the court's ambiguous holding on the issue of personhood.Examining rhetorical and legislative strategies, the article argues that pro-life forces have transformed their framing of the abortion issue, from one that pits fetal rights against maternal rights, to one that emphasizes the unique and intimate bond between the woman and the "child." This rhetorical shift coincides with legislative agendas that indirectly attack the central claim of mainstream pro-choice activists: That the fetus is not a person. The article examines the imagery used by pro-life activists and the substantive statutory reforms they advocate. By casting the relationship between woman and fetus as nonadversarial and pursuing legislation expanding the rights of the fetus, such activists have been effective in establishing indices of fetal personhood. The article contends that these strategies are effective and serve to undermine the rhetorical and legal foundations of the abortion right.