II. Fetal Heartbeat Standard
One of the major changes the ACA attempts to make is the establishment of a new fetal heartbeat standard. Applying this standard would significantly reduce the amount of time needed in a pregnancy for the government to consider the fetus a compelling state interest. The plaintiff, Planned Parenthood of Texarkana, will immediately refer to the precedent set by Roe v. Wade as their strongest argument. In Roe, the Court deemed abortion a constitutional right implied in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The right to privacy found in this Amendment and previously defined by Griswold v Connecticut, prevents unwarranted government intrusion in family matters. Therefore, a woman has the right to plan her family …show more content…
Due to these conditions, the notion of starre decisis holds substantially less weight. The changing technology described in this case essentially makes the viability standard unworkable and therefore allows for a changing of the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. As modern technology advances, so does the chances of fetus survivability outside the womb, therefore changing its viability. This can present numerous problems with establishing viability strictly at the third trimester. The advantage of the “fetal heartbeat standard” is that it does not change even with the advancement of medicine. It establishes a point of personhood that is consistent and detectable.
Texarkana will further their argument for the “fetal heartbeat standard” and the by acknowledging that Courts have overturned precedents regarding the status of personhood before. For example, Brown v. Board of Education changed the precedent of separate but equal created by Plessy v. Ferguson. This solidified the equality of black and white persons. Given that the Court has overturned precedent regarding personhood in the past, the State will argue that the moment of personhood during pregnancy can change as well. Under this assumption the “fetal heartbeat standard” is
One of the major changes the ACA attempts to make is the establishment of a new fetal heartbeat standard. Applying this standard would significantly reduce the amount of time needed in a pregnancy for the government to consider the fetus a compelling state interest. The plaintiff, Planned Parenthood of Texarkana, will immediately refer to the precedent set by Roe v. Wade as their strongest argument. In Roe, the Court deemed abortion a constitutional right implied in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The right to privacy found in this Amendment and previously defined by Griswold v Connecticut, prevents unwarranted government intrusion in family matters. Therefore, a woman has the right to plan her family …show more content…
Due to these conditions, the notion of starre decisis holds substantially less weight. The changing technology described in this case essentially makes the viability standard unworkable and therefore allows for a changing of the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. As modern technology advances, so does the chances of fetus survivability outside the womb, therefore changing its viability. This can present numerous problems with establishing viability strictly at the third trimester. The advantage of the “fetal heartbeat standard” is that it does not change even with the advancement of medicine. It establishes a point of personhood that is consistent and detectable.
Texarkana will further their argument for the “fetal heartbeat standard” and the by acknowledging that Courts have overturned precedents regarding the status of personhood before. For example, Brown v. Board of Education changed the precedent of separate but equal created by Plessy v. Ferguson. This solidified the equality of black and white persons. Given that the Court has overturned precedent regarding personhood in the past, the State will argue that the moment of personhood during pregnancy can change as well. Under this assumption the “fetal heartbeat standard” is