I also like how they declare that anti-abortion bills in the 19th century only existed to protect the mother, and that this revelation is reasoning enough to overturn said laws because the mother can now be protected. I thought they were supposed to decide the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the laws, not the PRACTICALITY. Maybe mothers were at less risk with abortion in the 1970s than the 1870s. Even so, who cares in the Constitutional scope? The fact that the anti-abortion legislations EXISTED in the first place- particularly so early in our country's existence, and without challenge- shows that anti-abortion legislation WAS seen as Constitutional, which should have been taken into consideration. It doesn't matter WHY a bill was enacted, it matters whether it is Constitutional. Policymakers are supposed to be considered with WHYs and HOWs, not judges.
Also interesting to note:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
I cite the above passage because I think it's going to cause pro-choicers tremendous problems in the coming years as science improves. "Viability" is constantly being pushed up because of improvements in medicine and science, and mother's lives and health are at significantly less risk during pregnancy now. A case can eventually be made that states should have more power now to regulate abortion because "viability" and the "health/life" problem caused my pregnancy are significantly different from how they used to be.
Besides, if the court reasons that anti-abortion statutes should be banned because the mother's health/life is much less at risk by abortion procedures because of scientific improvements, then they should also reason that abortion is no longer necessary because the mother's health/life is much less at risk in most pregnancy situations nowadays because of scientific improvements.
But of course we're dealing with the Supreme Court here, so don't expect reason. And this comes from someone who really doesn't care whether abortion goes one way or another. Let the states decide as it used to be.
The fact that the anti-abortion legislations EXISTED in the first place- particularly so early in our country's existence, and without challenge- shows that anti-abortion legislation WAS seen as Constitutional, which should have been taken into consideration
I read in the local paper over the weekend a story of a couple who adopted a frozen embryo & were able to bear & give birth to a healthy child.
What sickened me in the story is the pro-abortion crowd is AGAINST this! Can't call it "adoption"!!
You see, if an embryo is "adopted" and becomes a child, it is no longer the unemotional discardable "fetus" and therefore murder. ;) Pro-abortion rights crowd don't like the "slippery slope" this brings...