of criminal child neglect. i understand your argument is about abortion. i am trying to look at the issue of bodily autonomy. and whether or not she has a right, autonomy. in the case of ingesting an illegal substance and causing harm to a previability fetus. of course those issues aren t posed in this case. again, i would say the states can regulate throughout pregnancy both before and after viability to preserve fetal life and preserve the woman s health. the court has said there are other constitutional issues at stake. for instance in the ferguson state. but again, that s not what this case is about. this case is about a ban on abortion that the state concedes is weeks before viability and the court has been clear for 50 years that the one thing that
could not renounce. the question then is not whether roe should be overturned, but whether casey was egregiously wrong to adhere to roe s central holding. second, casey and roe were correct. for a state to take control of a woman s body and demand that she go through pregnancy and childbirth with all the physical risks and life-altering consequences that brings is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty. preserving a woman s right to make this decision until viability protects her liberty while logically balancing the other interests at stake. third, eliminating or reducing the right to abortion will propel women backwards. two generations have now relied on this right and one out of every four women makes the decision to end a pregnancy. mississippi s ban would particularly hurt women with a major health or life change during the course of a
states cannot do is to take the decision completely away from the woman until viability. until that point, it is her decision to make, given the unique physical demands of pregnancy and the life-altering consequences of pregnancy and having a child. the point you make about women and their place in society. those were made in roe as well. what we have before us is a 15-week standard. are you suggesting that the difference between 15 weeks and viability are going to have the same sort of impacts as you were talking about, or as we were talking about in roe? yes, your honor. i believe they would, because people who need abortion after 15 weeks are often in the most challenging circumstances. as i mentioned, they re people who have perhaps had a major health or life change. a family illness, a job loss, a separation, young people or people who are on con tro sepgs and delayed and recognizing
mississippi has a six-week plan it s using to defend the 15-week plan. i know, but i d like to focus on the 15-week ban. that s not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people s republic of china and north korea. and i don t think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if those are your share that particular time period. i think there s two questions there, your honor. if i may, first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier. for example, canada, great britain and most of europe
allows access to abortion right up until viability. and it also doesn t have the same barriers in place. what do you mean even if they have nominal lines earlier? some countries have a nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 weeks, but they permit legal access to abortion after that point for broad social reasons. health reasons, socio-economic reasons so their regimes aren t comparable, and they also don t have the same types of barriers that we have here. so if the court were to move the line substantially backwards and 15 weeks is nine weeks before viability, your honor, it s quite a bit backwards. it may need to reconsider the rules around regulations, because if it s cutting the time period to obtain an abortion roughly in half, the barriers are going to be much more important. thank you. i have a question about the safe haven laws. so petitioner points out in all 50 states you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing