pudge's Journal: Abortion Decision

I've seen many people on both sides of the abortion debate say the recent decision is one step toward the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

They are all wrong. :-)

Remember what Roe actually said, which Casey affirmed, which now Carhart has affirmed (explicitly, in all cases): the "confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health."

What part of "confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health" do you not get?

What Carhart did do is strike down some of the mythology of Roe and Casey, the utterly false belief that either case established a right to abortion after viability.

I know there's more to it than this, but this is the essential point: Congress could pass a law saying that no abortion is permitted after viability, unless the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy, and this law would be entirely Constitutional under both Roe and Casey.

Thank you...

[Zeriel]

...for being the first commentator on either side of the aisle that I've read online to correctly interpret this court decision. (speaking as the looney who favors unrestricted pre-viability abortions and entirely curtailed post-viability ones (except for life/health of mother etc))