Just as many (ahem) predicted, anti-abortion activists are keen on using a fetal heartbeat law to retest the limits of judicially-mandated abortion rights. The new battleground is in Mississippi.
For reasons I've stated in the past, I don't think a law such as this can withstand a challenge in federal court, but if SCOTUS wants to use a case to revisit current jurisprudence (which focuses on viability) on the subject, this is probably exactly the kind of case they'll take up.
In recent times, the general tactic of the pro-life lobby was to attack abortion by making it more difficult to procure. Courts have generally upheld the "undue burden" standard in striking down such attempts. This is a different tactic, attempting to redefine the Roe-Casey standard of when government should be allowed to interfere with abortion rights.
Current jurisprudence generally protects full abortion rights up until between 20-24 weeks of gestation. Fetal heartbeats begin as early as 3-4 weeks, often before a woman realizes she is even pregnant.
For reasons I've stated in the past, I don't think a law such as this can withstand a challenge in federal court, but if SCOTUS wants to use a case to revisit current jurisprudence (which focuses on viability) on the subject, this is probably exactly the kind of case they'll take up.
In recent times, the general tactic of the pro-life lobby was to attack abortion by making it more difficult to procure. Courts have generally upheld the "undue burden" standard in striking down such attempts. This is a different tactic, attempting to redefine the Roe-Casey standard of when government should be allowed to interfere with abortion rights.
Current jurisprudence generally protects full abortion rights up until between 20-24 weeks of gestation. Fetal heartbeats begin as early as 3-4 weeks, often before a woman realizes she is even pregnant.
