factual development in states. the workability of the undue standard alone. all the metrics casey was describing casey fails. i would emphasize this as well. casey was not a great example of simply letting precedent stand. it recast and overruled two of the court s most important abortion decisions. it adopted a new standard unknown to other parts of the law. those aren t the hallmarks of precedent and failed under this court. your answer is yes, you accept the way the special rule, the rule for the rare watershed, the principles for deciding whether to overturn such a case as roe, you accept that and think it s met.
blackman said the viability line was dicta and had some insight on the question. i would add justice blackman pointed out the arbitrary nature of it. casey said it was the central principle in roe, viability after tossing out the trimester formula which many people thought was the core principle. but was viability an issue in casey? i don t think it was squarely at issue, your honor. it is a little hard not to take the court at its word when it emphasized that the viability is the central part of roe s holding saying it is reaffirming that. we take it as it stands. the court has not it did not face a law like this certainly mr. chief justice. may i finish my inquiry? of course.
the court. that is exactly what the constitution was designed to resist. bill: jonathan, andy and carey stand by. we can hear the audio from inside the supreme court. the marshall joined the court in the month of june. we believe now in session. the court will begin. soon you will hear the chief justice and also scott stewart, the first lawyer to make arguments. let s drop in. yet the courts below struck the law down. it didn t matter that the law applies when an unborn child is undough neuably human and risks to women surge and the common abortion procedure is brutal. the lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability it is unconstitutional no matter what. roe and casey s core holding is that the people can protect an unborn girl s life when she be barely survive outside the womb
light both roe and casey emphasize the burdens of parenting insofar as you and many of your focus on the ways in which forced parenting and forced motherhood with hinder women s access to the workplace and the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem. it focuses the burden narrowly. there is without question an infringement on bodily autonomy which we have in other contexts that vaccines. however, it doesn t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are part of the same burden. so seems to me that the choice more focused would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at
human lives. if nothing had changed they would be just as bad as they were 30 years ago, 50 years ago and now we just have decades of damage and we have a situation where nearly 30 years after casey the court unfortunately divides over what casey, the lead case on the abortion area he have even means. the lower courts are left not knowing what to do and a fundamental problem as justice gorsuch emphasized in his opinion the problem for lower court is judges there is no neutral rule of law. judges have to look within themselves and that is never going to solve this issue. if the matters return to the people, the people can deal with it and work and compromise and reach different solutions. if we don t do that we ll have all this sort of damage and at some point it is appropriate for the court to say enough as it has in the great overrulings in brown and other cases where it said this is just enough.