Tuesday, January 2, 2007


In distinguishing between the viable and the non-viable fetus, the Supreme Court endeavored to create the appearance that it was only removing legal protection from the latter. That, however, is not the case. The Court expressly stated that, "the word 'person' as used in the fourteenth amendment does not include the unborn," and, "the use of the word (person) is such that it has application only post-natally." The Court precluded any State from regulation in the second trimester to state concerns "reasonably related to maternal health" (emphasis supplied). The Court went on to state that, "At the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even prescribe abortion . . ." This, at first blush, gives the impression that the State may legislate protection for third trimester pre-natal life. The Court, however, added a qualification as follows: . . . except where necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of the life or health of the mother" (emphasis to include her emotional health so that, in effect, any woman who can find any physician who will agree that the stresses associated with motherhood would adversely affect her emotionally (no matter how slightly), can claim a Constitutional right to an abortion (State legislation to the contrary notwithstanding). Anyone can clearly see that any woman under any circumstances can locate several such physicians. She needs only one. Where then is the protection for the "viable" fetus?
Obviously there is none.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.