That is not actually true but often claimed. Check the surviveability during the first trimester. Then check up to, say, 20 weeks. Then discover the wonderful high frequency of interventricular hemorrhages requiring permanent shunting.
The organs simply are not mature enough for "SCIENCE" to sustain them.
which creates a "bright line" that does not actually exist. Development is a continuum. Nevertheless, sufficient development of the lungs does remain a pretty "bright" line.Casey simplified matters by dividing things into two stages: Pre-viable and post-viable.
Anyways, beyond quibbling:
Which I never had a problem with. Those who bitch about the "Right to Privacy" do not understand United States history, particularly relevant to the Revolutionary period, nor the 10th Amendment. I remind them that there is no "Right to Breath" in the U.S. Constitution either. The 10th rather existed for that very reason.Now I'm pretty sure the test is no "undue burden" on abortions when the fetus is not viable. But it still rests on Roe's fundamental right to "privacy" re abortions language.
Then, after drinking the bong water, they would invalidate a number of cases. But if we are in Cloud Cuckoo Land, since the Congress determines the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, Congress could remove SCOTUS' judicial review. Its ability to declare an act "unconstitutional" is not a power given to it in the U.S. Constitution; it is a power John Jay's court famously declared it had which everyone sort of agrees is a "good idea." However, returning to reality, denial of a Right to Privacy undermines a number of rights that are in U.S. Constitution.If, in the unlikely event the Court wanted to, I think it could say "That whole fundamental right to 'privacy' thing in the Fourteenth Amendment? Yeah. We were high when we wrote that. Roe and everything that follows is out. States can do whatever the fuck they want to with abortion. Fight it out on the state level and a pox on both your houses."
If you have no "Right to Privacy," how can you object to a search? Notice that I did not write "seizure." Frankly, though I dislike the "THE FOUNDING FATHERERERS WOULD HAVE AGREED THAT YOU ARE HITLER!!!" appeals, I rather think if someone raised the subject of privacy, various ones would have thought, "what? Really? We need to put that in? Fine! Madison? You have a quill?"
* Somewhere in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment there is a fundamental right to "privacy." Don't ask anyone to show you the specific wording, just believe them when the tell you "It's there."
I suppose you could call privacy a "privilege or immunity."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Again, it was a right too obvious for the Founding Fathers [Tm.--Ed.] to specify. People excoriate Blackmun on his "penumbrae" or whatever, but if the Founding Fathers did not value a right to privacy why would they codify rights that are based on it?