Empire strike back...preemptively

Posted

Fearing the conceivable overturning of Roe v. Wade under the Trump presidency, the abortion industry and its legislative allies have proposed a preemptive remedy in Rhode Island entitled the Reproductive Health Care Act of 2017 (S 274/H 5343). Supposedly, according to the Planned Parenthood Press Release, “This Legislation replicates the central tenet of Roe v. Wade. The Act clearly states that the state shall not interfere with a woman’s right to prevent, commence, continue or terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.”

Except that it doesn’t do either. It does not replicate the central tenet of Roe, as I’ll explain presently, nor does it clearly state non-interference before fetal viability. What it states is that “neither the state, nor any of its agencies, or political subdivisions shall interfere with a woman’s decision to prevent, commence, continue or terminate a pregnancy provided the decision is made prior to fetal viability” (emphasis added). In other words, as long as the decision is made prior to fetal viability, the termination of pregnancy can take place at any time, even on the eve of live birth. Now perhaps this mistake could be attributed to careless legal draftsmanship.

Except that the central holding of Roe, as authoritatively interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Southeastern Pennsylvania twenty-five years ago in 1992, was that prior to fetal viability, the state could place no “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle” on a woman’s getting an abortion. This is significantly different from the proposed bill’s prohibiting any interference with a woman’s terminating her pregnancy at all. The only exceptions the proposed Act makes are for the R.I. law on parental consent for abortion for minors, Section 23-4.7-6, and the statutory protection for conscientious objection to abortion , Section 23-17-11.

As Paul Benjamin Linton, the national expert on state abortion law and author of the authoritative ABORTION UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS, A STATE-BY-STATE ANALYSIS (2d. ed. 2012) has correctly noted with respect to the proposed law, it would repeal by implication all state laws and regulations “regulating abortion, such as those mandating informed consent, prohibiting partial-birth and post-viability abortions, and statutes and rules regulating abortion clinics, limiting abortion coverage for state employees and restricting public funding of abortion.”

The proposed bill shares the “fetus counts for nothing” view of the abortion industry. It institutes a laissez-faire policy with respect to the termination of human life. For instance, its definition of “fetal viability” is “that state of gestation where the attending physician, taking into account the particular facts of the case, has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb.” Nothing about the U.S. Supreme Court’s clarification that an unborn child may be considered viable if there is a reasonable likelihood of its sustained survival outside the womb, “with or without artificial support.” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388 (1979) (emphasis added). And, under the Bill, if the abortion decision is made prior to viability, then the abortion can take place at any time.

And why is this extreme legislation considered necessary? The fear that Roe v. Wade could conceivably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. That premise is highly unlikely, even assuming Judge Neil Gorsuch, nominated to succeed Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, were ready to so rule. There would still be a solid five votes in favor of reaffirming Roe. So at the very least, another Trump nominee who was solidly in favor of overturning Roe would be necessary. And even if Roe were overturned, the subject of abortion regulation would merely be returned to the state and local level, where reasonable compromises could be enacted. Legislating abortion on demand now in Rhode Island would be preemptive overkill at the behest of the abortion industry.

Dwight G. Duncan is a professor at the University of Massachusetts School of Law, Dartmouth

Comments

2 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
davebarry109

So do you believe this professor, who articulately states the case, or Joe McNamara and cohorts who deny any such thing?

Wednesday, March 15
Katfrye

I personally am sick of being given a choice between different men to decide who to listen to about how to legislate women's reproductive health decisions!

I am especially done with having as a choice for that choice from a man who uses terms like abortion industry and implies women are just dying to be able to decide prior to viability and then abort the day before their due date.

He is of course fine with this issue being addressed after Roe vs Wade is overturned with absolutely no concern for what happens in the interim as this is not an issue that will affect him.

Thursday, March 30