Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.
The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.
|
The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)
Threaded Mode
