No. of Recommendations: 3
In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court said state law should be used to balance the interests of a pregnant woman and the fetus. Most states leave the complicated heathcare decisions to the pregnant woman (with the advice of medical doctors) in the first and second trimesters. In contrast, the Texas government says abortions are not allowed when there is a fetal heartbeat except when there is a medical emergency. (An emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action.)
Of course, the Texas abortion ban is based on religious doctrine (what the Pope says), but the Texas government can't invoke religion in defending the law (because of the pesky 1st amendment). A Texas judge has allowed an abortion, but the reasons are not clear. There is no medical emergency. Maybe it's a simple balancing of the interests of the pregnant woman, the Texas government, and the fetus. In this case:
pregnant woman's interest (she wrote an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News)
emotional suffering ("I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer")
physical suffering (“I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy")
future harm ("or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy”)
Texas government's interest
The small possibility that the fetus survives and develops into a productive adult. (In general, Texas benefits from healthy births. If there were no births, then there would be no future Texas population.)
The pregnant woman remains healthy.
fetus's interest
physical suffering if birth is allowed.
small possibility of survival.
To me, the very real harm to the pregnant woman vastly outweighs the very small benefits to the Texas government and the fetus. But the Texas law gives ZERO weight to the pregnant woman's interests (except for medical emergencies). The Texas law protects the fetus and abandons the pregnant woman. This can only be justified using religious doctrine. Maybe the Texas law is unconstitional because it violates the 1st amendment.
=== links ===
Texas judge grants pregnant woman permission to get an abortion despite state’s ban, December 7, 2023
https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-roe-568c...Supreme Court Of The United States, Decided June 24, 2022
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’S Health Organization
"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."
"Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed 'potential life.' But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently."
"Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s 'concept of existence' prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-139...Texas S.B. No. 8
"(3) Texas has compelling interests from the outset of a woman's pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the unborn child; and
(4) to make an informed choice about whether to continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a compelling interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity."
"a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat"
"Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance"
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf... 