The chief justice of the Supreme Court Wednesday asked abortion promoters why isn't 15 weeks enough time to decide whether to get an abortion.
The court heard arguments over a case out of Mississippi where a new state law would limit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, lowering the limit that now is vaguely called "viability," which is considered to be about 24 weeks.
Chief Justice John Roberts said, "If you think that the issue is one of choice – that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy – that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the fair choice, opportunity to choice.
"And why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?"
A lawyer promoting abortion, and fighting the state's new limit, Julie Rickelman, speculated that the problem would be "there will be no stopping point. States will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy."
While the case is about a Mississippi limit, it's widely considered to be a way for the high court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent that essentially created an unlimited "right" to abortion in the U.S.
The problem is that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and the author of the opinion creating that right, Harry Blackmun, admitted in the opinion itself that it was based on assumptions.
He said "if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment."
Another justice considered to be on the conservative side of the Supreme Court spectrum, Samuel Alito, questioned a pro-abortion lawyer about "viability."
"What would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life, that the line really doesn't make any sense -- that it is, as Justice Blackman himself described it, arbitrary?" he asked Rikelman.
He pointed out that the unborn child "has an interest in having a life" both before and after viability, to which Rikelman said, "In some people's view it doesn't."
Fox News reported Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the Supreme Court actually can simply ban abortion, but Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart said it cannot.
"As I understand it, you're arguing that the Constitution's silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion. In other words, that the Constitution's neither pro-life nor pro-choice?" Kavanaugh said, to which Stewart agreed.
The lower abortion time period actually would move the U.S. away from alignment with repressive nations like China and North Korea, which also use that standard, and into step with much of the rest of the civilized world.
If Roe is overturned, regulation of abortion would be the responsibility of states.
Democrats in America, in fact, have gone to extremes to promotion abortion up to the point of birth, or even after.
It was Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who infamously argued for infanticide in a radio interview several years ago.
He said if a child survived an abortion attempt, "it would be kept comfortable if that that’s what the mother desired" and then there would be a "discussion" between the doctor and mother about whether the child would be allowed to live.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The post Roberts suggests abortion 'viability' standard be reconsidered appeared first on WND.