Page 7 - Viability Line News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

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 we're 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 15-week limit on abortion, right? >> i don't think the court has ever analyzed reliance with that ...

Viability line is that it's clearly demarcated the scope of a woman's protected liberty in this context. the state is not asking this court to replace it with a clear 15 -week line. they're 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 today is 15 weeks. and i just wonder what the strength of your reliance arguments which sounded to m...

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 isn't 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. >> it's a very interesting question. i think justice barrett raised, too. it's usually just philosophical, but i think it has bite here. when i read casey, it's not just one on one. you know, two is greater than one. casey plus ...

Addressed it but that's 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 didn't say anything about viability. like what justice blackman said in when discussing among his colleagues, good reason not to have papers out that early, is that they don't have to address the line drawing at all in roe and didn't have to address the...

The conclusion? why didn't you address the safe haven laws and why don't they matter? >> they don't 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 don't just focus on the burdens of parenting. pregnancy itself is unique and poses physical demands and risks on women and has impact on all of their lives and ability to care for other children, other family ...