So the opinion says:
“The law at issue in this case, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, see Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191 (2018), contains this central provision: “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” §4(b).
To support this Act, the legislature made a series of factubal findings. It began by noting that, at the time of enact- ment, only six countries besides the United States “permit[ted] nontherapeutic or elective abortion-on-demand after the twentieth week of gestation.”15 §2(a). The legislature then found that at 5 or 6 weeks’ gestational age an “unborn human being’s heart begins beating”; at 8 weeks the “unborn human being begins to move about in the womb”; at 9 weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”; at 10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “[h]air, fin- gernails, and toenails . . . begin to form”; at 11 weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she may “move about freely in the womb”; and at 12 weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on ‘the human form’ in all relevant respects.” §2(b)(i) (quoting Gonzales v. Car- hart, 550 U. S. 124, 160 (2007)). It found that most abor- tions after 15 weeks employ “dilation and evacuation proce- dures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the “intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profes- sion.” §2(b)(i)(8).”
Clearly carefully crafted by years of legal wrangling and thought and planning. I will admit that I was surprised by the effort - my view of the typical Misssissippian was adversely affected by Mississippi Burning.
How do you fellas (both sides/all sides) see this statutory language now that Roe was overturned?
If you KNEW in advance Roe was dead, would you have accepted this law? It is neither “No, none, ever” or “yes, always.” What tweaks would have made you accept it? Or is “never” or “always” going to be the demanded extremes?
The provisions were discussed as the case awaited ruling, but time and events have a way of quickening the ultimate thoughts. (First lesson from my first appearance at a federal courthouse - “when you come here for your resolution, one side wins and one side loses. You want to talk in the hall for 10 minutes, or do you want my ruling?”)
“The law at issue in this case, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, see Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191 (2018), contains this central provision: “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” §4(b).
To support this Act, the legislature made a series of factubal findings. It began by noting that, at the time of enact- ment, only six countries besides the United States “permit[ted] nontherapeutic or elective abortion-on-demand after the twentieth week of gestation.”15 §2(a). The legislature then found that at 5 or 6 weeks’ gestational age an “unborn human being’s heart begins beating”; at 8 weeks the “unborn human being begins to move about in the womb”; at 9 weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”; at 10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “[h]air, fin- gernails, and toenails . . . begin to form”; at 11 weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she may “move about freely in the womb”; and at 12 weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on ‘the human form’ in all relevant respects.” §2(b)(i) (quoting Gonzales v. Car- hart, 550 U. S. 124, 160 (2007)). It found that most abor- tions after 15 weeks employ “dilation and evacuation proce- dures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the “intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profes- sion.” §2(b)(i)(8).”
Clearly carefully crafted by years of legal wrangling and thought and planning. I will admit that I was surprised by the effort - my view of the typical Misssissippian was adversely affected by Mississippi Burning.
How do you fellas (both sides/all sides) see this statutory language now that Roe was overturned?
If you KNEW in advance Roe was dead, would you have accepted this law? It is neither “No, none, ever” or “yes, always.” What tweaks would have made you accept it? Or is “never” or “always” going to be the demanded extremes?
The provisions were discussed as the case awaited ruling, but time and events have a way of quickening the ultimate thoughts. (First lesson from my first appearance at a federal courthouse - “when you come here for your resolution, one side wins and one side loses. You want to talk in the hall for 10 minutes, or do you want my ruling?”)
