Source+8

Barr, William P. "Proposed Federal Abortion Legislation." //Justice//. N.p., 1 July 1992. Web. 23 Aug. 2012. .

__Facts:__

 * The bill is described by its sponsors as a "codification" of much of the complex regime of abortion legislation erected by the Supreme Court since its 1973 decision in __Roe v. Wade__, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
 * The bill as revised expressly states its purpose to be "to achieve the same limitations as provided, as a constitutional matter, under the strict scrutiny standard of review enunciated in __Roe v. Wade__ and applied in subsequent cases from 1973 to 1988." Section 2(b).
 * The essence of the bill remains substantially unchanged
 * The revised bill would thus still allow abortions for any reason, even sex selection, before the fetus becomes "viable."
 * With no definition or standards for viability, it appears that the bill could leave that determination to the person performing the abortion.
 * Thus a single health care professional's judgment that a particular fetus was not "viable" would be conclusive and binding on the state, whether or not the fetus satisfied other objective criteria of "viability" such as a test for weight.
 * It is not even clear that the professional judgment must be rendered by a medical doctor.
 * Even after fetal viability, with no standards for determining what constitutes the "health of the woman" justifying an abortion, the revised bill would still go well beyond merely "codifying" __Roe__.
 * As we have explained in earlier statements and testimony, we believe that the term "health" in section 3(a)(2) would likely be construed broadly. __See__ __Doe v. Bolton__, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
 * The Court there noted that the medical judgment must be made in light of all factors, including "emotional, psychological, [and] familial" factors. __Id.__ at 192.
 * The revised bill purports to address a few of the concerns the Department has raised previously.
 * These changes, however, do not fully meet the Department's concerns on the issues they address, and leave many more serious flaws unaddressed.
 * It provides only that the state could require the minor to "involve" the parent in the decision.
 * The term "involve" is left undefined. It is troubling that the bill's authors chose an inherently vague term over more definite words such as "notify" and "consent." It is simply unclear whether the bill would exclude parental consent requirements.
 * The bill could thus be read to invalidate laws in the twenty-one states that require some form of parental consent, including the Pennsylvania abortion statute upheld this week by the Supreme Court in __Casey__.