> It is fun to cherry-pick the most favorable facts for your argument from a source.

I randomly picked a state I assumed would be the most conservative.

> The rest all use the much higher bar of "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

You said: “red state abortion laws do not make exceptions for the mother's health.” By your own admission that’s false.

The “higher bar” you mention is similar to the “grave permanent injury” standard used in France. (Note also that France had a seven day waiting period until recently, and Germany still has one plus mandatory counseling.)

> All ban abortions starting within the first trimester, most at 6 weeks.

Yes, but all those bans have been blocked by federal courts, and none have gone into effect, because Roe prohibits banning abortion prior to viability (20-24 weeks). Under Roe, most EU abortion law would unconstitutional for the same reason. That’s why Roe is radical compared to Europe.

> I'm not discussing the upper thread. You are an attorney; this isn't ignorance, it's dishonesty. US abortion laws are not more radical than other developed nations.

One of the central issues Roe and Casey grapple with is at what point is the fetus sufficiently developed that the State has an interest in protecting its life. That’s the whole point of Roe’s trimester framework. It’s also a fundamental moral question about human life. Casey says this about “Roe’s essential holding.”:

> It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

The parts italicized above are ones that most EU countries disagree with. They draw the line at the end of the first trimester. There may be various exceptions beyond that—e.g. impairment of mental health in Denmark—but at that point the ball is squarely in the court of the government to choose what to allow under what circumstances.

What’s “intellectually dishonest” about pointing out that Roe’s viability line is quite radical compared to the ones other developed countries draw?

I just cited the WaPo article for its summery of cut-offs. Here’s another source for the same information: https://abort-report.eu/wp-content/uploads/Abort-Report_Euro...

All but three EU countries limit “on demand” abortions to 14 weeks or earlier. The earliest limit in the US, that has actually been allowed to go into effect, is 20 weeks.