That's not what the states are doing. They are protecting the rights of the unborn child. The state always defers down to the lowest level of defense as in this case there are two separate issues with rights. That of the woman and that of her unborn. The unborn is defenseless and the state always will protect those who can't protect themselves.
Then we could argue about what "viability" means. I don't think it should include cases which require life support (machines), for example.
Everyone does NOT believe that including our sitting President who voted in IL to support partial birth abortions.
"state always will protect those who can't protect themselves." that statement is almost funny considering our history in this country. when the feds had to send troops in the south to integrate the schools were the states "protecting those who can't protect themselves"?
And they also sent them in to put down a WW1 Veterans protest during the 1930s. So it isn't always for a noble cause.
I used to be strongly pro-choice all through college, and even when I first got married. When my wife became pregnant with our first child there was a potential problem and we went in early for the first sonogram at seven weeks. What I saw changed my perspective entirely. There was a fully-shaped human being, moving around, reacting to my wife's movement, with a heartbeat of 100 beats per minute. When I asked the OB/GYN doc when she thinks life begins, she said there are many scientific theories, but nobody knows for certain. She said, all we can do is take measurements, study the physiology and try and reach a scientific conclusion. She also said that technology is going to make everyone rethink the definition over time. I'm still pro-choice, simply because if abortion is made illegal, that won't stop it. Women will just have unsafe abortions rather than safe procedures. But the experience certainly changed my mind about unborn babies. It's no accident that the moment a woman finds out that she's pregnant she starts talking about "my baby," not "my fetus." This is not a religious issue for me. I'm a devout agnostic. But when I hear a respected scientist/doctor say we don't know precisely when life begins, it raises a lot of questions.
it's funny how the same people who complain that the big government interferes with their freedoms (i think they mean high taxes) don't give a rat's ass about the freedom of a woman to choose whether to have or not to have a child. if a woman does not want the baby, she does not want that baby - very simple. who is supposed to take care of it after birth? if she does not want it then it will end up in some orphanage only most likely to become a criminal - who needs that? not me! CA is about to release 50K criminals - probably many came from orphanages. how much money and lives would have been saved had those been aborted? i say the more unwanted babies are aborted the better off we are in the long term.
Vhehn, don't be a dick. States are suppose to do that but you and I both know that the government tramples over the constitution and states rights constantly. I'm speaking about what the states are suppose to do under the law. There are a lot of things states and federal governments do that abuse their power and that is why we have a court system to appeal to. And when those courts fail us the system fails us. But this is why it is absolutely crucial that we elect people at every level of the government, on both the right and left, that respect the law, the constitution and states rights.