Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think fetus rights (none)
    are directly mentioned in the cases, but I believe the standard is the balancing test of the State's rights in the unborn, as discussed in Casey.

    The very notion that the State has a substantial interest in potential life leads to the conclusion that not all regulations must be deemed unwarranted. Not all burdens on the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue. In our view, the undue burden standard is the appropriate means of reconciling the State's interest with the woman's constitutionally protected liberty.

    although it's getting late, you still have plenty of time

    by maracuja on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:07:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Correct (none)
      The notion that the state has an interest in protection of potential life is hardly unprecedented.  It is a theme than runs through the jurisprudence in this area.  Armando is correct that an express recognition of fetal rights would be unprecedented, but the practical effect of recognizing a state interest in the area amounts to the same thing if taken too far.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site