Arkansas Act 301: 12-week regulation of artificially aborting gestation.
Posts  1 - 3  of  3
Killing an "unborn child" when no human is aware this infant is alive does not affect ANYONE but the female, the "unborn child", and doctor directly as well as the maker of all "artificial abortion" related products. Indirectly this affects one male, the doctor and the maker of "artificial abortion" related products.

Human laws are used to create secular rule-sets regulating various human actions that will affect another human(s).

Roe v Wade considered only Norma McCovey and her desire to abort gestation of her third child.  There was no abortion of the "clump of cells" creating the "standing" for Norma McCovey. She gave these up for adoption after born.

Norma McCovey had three children but was NEVER a mother.

The Roe v Wade litigation was about law(s) already passed making abortion(s) illegal.  These law(s) would have been challenged without Norma McCovey because two young women lawyers challenging these law(s) were looking for anyone with obvious legal "standing". 

The issue of gestation regulation gives all fertile women "standing".  The two young women lawyers did not want to risk losing their case due to not having a legitimate issue to be brought before the court. The fact that Norma McCovey was no longer pregnant when Roe v Wade resolved made "standing" no longer an issue given much weight in most abortion cases.

Roe v Wade did not mention viability except in attempting to weigh the earliest the clump of cells could possibly have their own right(s).  The interests of the State(s) were pinned to the desire to enforce the rights a "speculative person".

Human laws are used to create secular rule-sets regulating various human actions that will affect another human(s).

Why has no litigation ever considered the other rational for regulating gestation? The male source of sperm; The innocence of children; Doctors or the public opposed to ANY abortion.

Not being aware of pregnancy does not absolve females of the responsibility to determine if voluntary sexual activity has resulted in pregnancy. Rapes do not either but make the State(s) responsible for this as well.

When the "group of cells" has developed a heartbeat after 12-weeks, innocent children, doctors, or the public might hear. The potentially listening public has a real claim of interest in gestation of the "group of cells" creating this heartbeat to proceed naturally. This public interest is as strong as the public desire to prosecute murders.

As the death penalty becomes disfavored by judges and the public, the right to artificially abort gestation does the same.

Humans, "cell groups", fetuses, or the unborn are not usually able to live outside of a womb till 24-weeks.  Still; Only 7 nations on earth allow abortions after 20-weeks.

Most people do not agree with aborting gestation after 20-weeks. Source(s).  A bill passed in the House of Representatives in 2013 prohibiting aborting gestation after 20-weeks but was never addressed by the less representative Senate oligarchy. 

The 20-week bill will be irrelevant after Arkansas' 12-week ban is found to comply with Roe v Wade EXACTLY because Roe did not consider anyone before the court but only "speculatively" pregnant females and the duty of the State to protect the "cell groups", fetuses, or the unborn humans within "speculatively" pregnant females.

The Supreme Court has already punctured the "viability" argument by allowing the partial-birth method from being banned regardless of fetal age.

The Eighth Circuit just attempted to create a human right to abort before "viability" by intentionally misreading the Casey reaffirmation of Roe like ALL law schools and judges continue to do while misreading Roe the way Casey did twendy-plus years ago and ignoring the Gonzales v. Carhart contradiction.

The regulation of gestation at 12-weeks is the future that ends the legally and politically profitable intentional abortion issue but has extreme culture impacting consequences.  Oh sure; the surgical abortion money has funded pre-viability misinterpretation of Roe by Casey.

The corporate interests of drug manufacturers will soon start funding the 12-week ban in order to begin the fight that results in an almost OTC abortion pill. 

The fundamental human right to control the self without affecting ANYONE else directly or for 12-weeks of gestation is the argument and cornerstone for allowing abortion pills to extinguish abortion's legal furnace and ignite the legal furnace regarding control of abortion pills.
replied to:  CurtisNeeley
Replied to:  Killing an "unborn child" when no human is aware this infant...
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You do have your facts on Norma McCorvey in error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

But whether she was ever a "mother" (she was) is not relevant.

"Why has no litigation ever considered the other rational for regulating gestation? The male source of sperm; The innocence of children; Doctors or the public opposed to ANY abortion. "

Because none of these have any standing. Since it only the woman who is pregnant, then it is no one else's business. A major section of the public is opposed to certain sexual acts -- like oral sex -- but that does not give them the standing to tell you and your partner what you should do.

So, the ONLY standing possible is the legal status of the fetus. Is it a human being in the legal/ethical sense where it has "inalienable" rights? Or is it a nonviable part of a woman's body?

You have not considered some of the other ramifications of considering termination of "gestation" to be murder. Fully 75% of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate. Are those possible crimes? Do we investigate each one to see if it is 'involuntary manslaughter" on the part of the woman? By your "logic", it appears YES!

Also consider that alcohol is a known teratogen -- causes birth defects. So you and your wife decide to celebrate your wedding anniversary. You go out to dinner. Cocktail before, wine during, and liqueur after dinner. All legal. You 2 then continue your celebration at home with sex and there is "gestation". But your wife still had alcohol in her blood. By your logic, she is guilty of poisoning the embryo. What your logic would mean would be that NO woman of child bearing years could EVER have a drink or smoke a cigarette. Have fun enforcing that.

BTW, the reason so few countries have abortion after 20 weeks and the Supreme Court upheld bans on "partial birth abortions" (even if the mother will DIE), are those "public opposed to ANY abortion". That public got what it could and those rules represent a political compromise. Not ethics. Not science. Not law. A political compromise because the opponents to abortion had enough political power to get something they wanted.
replied to:  lucaspa
Replied to:  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make....
The people you claim have no standing have clear legal standing after 12-weeks and development of a heartbeat. Roe from 1973 was honorable but did not address these other interests. None were before SCOTUS at the time.

Perhaps you use a different meaning for "mother" than I do? Yes; A female who gives birth is technically a "mother" but is not the type mother who raises children. Norma McCorvey raised nobody.

To demonstrate standing a party must be able to show sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.

1) A male attempting to procreate is harmed greatly if his progeny is killed. OBVIOUS?
2) The public is harmed because an innocent life is artificially ended "maliciously" by another. Many state this should create standing from "conception" but SCOTUS did not agree in 1973. SCOTUS will not today or ever.
3) The right to privacy, supporting Roe in 1973, does not factually exist after the heartbeat announces a new life has begun.

Corporate America supported and may support abortion of gestation after 12-weeks but before 24-weeks today.
The corporate American interests will soon prefer a fundamental human right to abort gestation for 12-weeks. This fundamental human right will then support sale or dispersal of "abortion" medication and use of "abortion" medication instead of contraceptives if desired in order to avert hormonal medications.

Yes; many, if not most, of the public are against almost ANY elective abortion of human heartbeats. (See Europe) SCOTUS will reject intentional abortions of live heartbeats after 13-weeks gestation or after a murder conviction.