Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[28] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[29]
The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well.[30] Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."[31] Douglas preferred the first trimester line,[32] while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision.[33] Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
So, correct, fetal "viability" was supposed to trump a woman's right to abort her child, but the Doe vs. Bolton companion case to RvW essentially permitted abortion throughout the entire nine months if the mother had a "compelling" reason to abort. This loophole is what late term abortionists use to justify their grizzly business as a compelling reason can be emotional, physical, financial and age of mother. For all practical purposes, states only have a compelling legal interest regarding who can perform abortions, regulating where they are done and health requirements for the protection of the mother.
The Texas case was designed to do just that by insisting doctors have admitting privileges to a hospital (in cases of injury), who can legally perform them and procedures for administering abortion inducing drugs.
So, no, the overall "privacy" theme does not end at viability since the abortion lobby has seen fit to fight against any and all impediments to a woman who wants to end her pregnancy - no matter why she does or when.
Liberals love “science”. Because of Medical advances, Children born after only 26 weeks in the Womb can survive.
This is because of scientific advances.
Liberals don't care for that “science”.
The next question is when can an Infant in the Womb feel pain? That really gets the Libtards in a frenzy. They wouldn't let a Puppy in it's Mother's Womb suffer, but a Human, no problem.
We have to use the Liberal tool of “incrementalism” in reverse.
The Texas Law starts the process with the 20 week Restriction. We have to use words like “tortuous death” to describe Late Term Abortions. These clean words Liberals use, “choice” and “women's reproductive health” have become part of the language, and it was carefully planned that way, just like the bogus Republican War on Women.
Funny how “privacy” is so sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but it thrown to the winds when the same people want universal health care/Obamacare.