The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)

[John Bickers]

Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
This is a request for info to clear up my possible misunderstanding.  I
didn't read either Carhart case as referring to post-viability
procedures (except where necessary to preserve the woman's life or
health, and Carhart II seems to me to shrink the health exception to
post-New Deal reasonableness).
 
Isn't part of the point of the joint opinion in Casey that after
viability the state may, in fact, unduly burden the choice to abort?
Might they not even prohibit all abortions after that point (subject to
the exception above)?  And doesn't viability occur in the second
trimester?  
 
John Bickers
Chase College of Law
 
(859) 572-6065 
________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scaperlanda,
Michael A.
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:26 PM
To: Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth; Trevor Morrison; Jonathan H. Adler;
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: The Word "Killing" (was Re: regret)
 
 
 
We are talking about second and third trimester abortions because that
is what the Supreme Court was addressing in Carhart II.  If referring to
the woman as "mother" is disrespectful, put that on the Roe Court, not
me.  Is the Roe Court's motive "cruel and disrespectful?  How do you
know? 
________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070424/223652a1/attachment.html