Page 4 - Viability Line News Today

That, would that argument be true in terms of viability as well? in other words, your discussion of the reliance interests and the ability for women and men to control their lives in reliance on right to an abortion, the argument would not be as strong, i think you will have to concede, given what were talking about, which is not a prohibition, it is a 15-week line. is that right? you have to hypothesize people who have planned their lives according to a 24 or whatever week limit it is but not a...

Viability line is that its clearly demarcated the scope of a womans protected liberty in this context. the state is not asking this court to replace it with a clear 15 -week line. theyre asking the court to reverse the liberty interest altogether or leave it up in the air. if that happens immediately states with six-week wan bans and so on would seek to enforce those with no continued guidance of what the scope of the liberty guidance is going forward. >> the thing that is at issue before us tod...

Assessing the regulations against. whether they imposed a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman before viability. and if a prohibition like this law isnt a substantial obstacle, then nothing would be. the issue was squarely before the court, and, in fact, the court said at page 879 that in adopting the undue burden test, it was not disturbing the viability line. >> its a very interesting question. i think justice barrett raised, too. its usually just philosophical, but i think it has bite ...

Addressed it but thats different than saying it was at issue. it said it was the central principle of roe because it was pretty much all that was left after they were done dealing with the rest of it. and the regulations in casey had no applicability or not depending on where viability was. they applied throughout the whole range, period. they didnt say anything about viability. like what justice blackman said in when discussing among his colleagues, good reason not to have papers out that early...

The conclusion? why didnt you address the safe haven laws and why dont they matter? >> they dont matter for a couple of reasons. first, even if some of those laws are new since casey the idea a woman could place a child up for adoption has been true since roe so it is a consideration that the court already had before it when it decided those cases and adhered to the viability line. we dont just focus on the burdens of parenting. pregnancy itself is unique and poses physical demands and risks on ...

Overruled. i wanted to give you a chance to explain that. >> sure, your honor. a couple of points. at the petition stage we were identified for the court three questions. we emotion -- emphasized five times the court was at the least going to reconsider, re-evaluate its precedents and asking the court to get rid of a viability line or any suggestion of one. so we added however and we had to take account of the reality that this argument has not faired well in the lower courts and lost in every c...

Obviously more principled or more workable than viability because of the con -- >> why? thats the roe framework. the trimester. why wouldnt that be workable if you pick a line and say 27 weeks, third trimester states interests increase. i dont understand why 27 weeks is less workable than 24? >> im not trying to suggest it is. what i was trying to suggest is the viability line is a principled and workable line. to change it, there would have to be a new line thats more workable and principled an...

About the viability line as well as i do probably better than i do. what would you say in defense of that line? what would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life, that the line really doesnt make any sense? that it is, as justice blackman himself described it, arbitrary. the wom -- if a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isnt that right? >> no, your...

>> the roe and casey have failed. >> eliminating or reducing the right to abortion will propel women backwards. >> what has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line? >> what constitutional right protects the right to abortion? >> theres been 50 years of water under the bridge, 50 years of decisions saying that this is part of our law. >> you say the existing frame work accommodates, your word, both the interests of the pregnant woman and the interest of the fetus. ca...

The state isnt asking the court to replace it with a clear 15 week line for the right. theyre asking the court to reverse the liberty interest all together or leave it up in the air. if that were to happen immediately states with six and eight weeks and 10 week bans would seek to enforce those with no continued guidance what the skoefpt liberty interest is going forward. >> the thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks. and i just wonder what the strength of your reliance arguments, whi...