Source: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/florida-alliance-planned-parenthood-affiliates/legislative-session-2019/20-week-abortion-ban/legal-issues
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:56:06+00:00

Document:
Legal Issues | Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc.
Since 2010, 18 states have enacted a ban on abortion after 20 weeks into a woman’s pregnancy.1 These laws ban abortion prior to viability,2 in clear violation of a woman’s constitutionally protected right to an abortion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down 20-week bans in Idaho7 and Arizona8 as unconstitutional. In striking down the Arizona ban, the court held that the law was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents”9 that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy prior to viability.
Arizona appealed this decision but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the law remains permanently enjoined.10 The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent decision on abortion rights, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, reaffirmed that abortion is a constitutionally-protected right subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
Under Whole Woman’s Health, courts must apply heightened scrutiny to restrictions on abortion.13 In so doing, courts cannot give “uncritical deference” to the facts supporting the government’s position;14 courts must actually consider whether credible evidence supports the legislative fact-finding and other evidence presented by the state.
1. The majority of these laws apply at 20 weeks “post-fertilization age,” or 22 weeks since the woman’s last menstrual period, though a minority apply at 20 weeks lmp.
2. Viability is generally understood to be around 24 weeks from the date of the woman’s last menstrual period. See, e.g., AMERICAN CONGRESS OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, ACOG STATEMENT ON HR 3803 (June 18, 2012), available at http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Government%20Relations%20and%20Outreach/20120618DCAborStmnt.pdf (“Most obstetrician-gynecologists understand fetal viability as occurring near 24 weeks gestation utilizing LMP dating.”).
3. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 860 (1992); see also id. at 870 (“We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that before that time the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”); id. at 879; Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124, 146 (2007) (“[b]efore viability, a State ‘may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy,’” quoting Casey).
4. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 64 (1976).
6. Since recognizing the constitutional right to choose an abortion, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a ban on abortion after viability must include an exception for situations in which an abortion “is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health” of the woman. Roe, 410 U.S. at 165 (emphasis added); Casey, 505 U.S. at 879 (quoting Roe, same). A woman needing an abortion to protect her health whose condition does not meet the narrow exceptions in a 20-week ban would not be able to end her pregnancy in order to protect her health, as Supreme Court precedent has required for over forty years.
7. McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015).
8. Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 82 U.S.L.W. 3404 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2014) (No. 13-402).
10. 82 U.S.L.W. 3404 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2014) (No. 13-402).
11. 136 S.Ct. 2292, 2016 WL 3461560 (June 26, 2016).
13. See id. at 2309-10.
15. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 860 (1992); see also id. at 870; id. at 879; Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124, 146 (2007); Whole Woman’s Health, 136 S.Ct. at 2320 (“we now use ‘viability’ as the relevant point at which a State may begin limiting women’s access to abortion for reasons unrelated to maternal health.”). 16. Brief For American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as Amici Curiae in Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal, Isaacson et al. v. Horne et al., 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) (No. 12–16670); Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice, (March 2010) https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.