Rra's Argument On Abortion

● According to RRA’s argument, the new statute does not have an exception to allow abortions in cases of rape or incest after the point of fetus viability. But under Casey, a state may prohibit abortion after viability even if the pregnancy was the result of rape and before viability, a state may not place a “substantial obstacle” (impose an undue burden) on obtaining abortion. It is true that the new statute violates the U.S Constitution, by not allowing abortions after the fetus viability. The U.S Supreme Court held that, even after the fetus viability, the states cannot prohibit abortions, necessary to preserve the health or life of the woman. The chances of winning the argument are low for RRA in this point because the U.S constitution has not provided specific requirements in cases of rape, but it is mainly concerned with the maternal health.

● If the abortion is sought for the purpose of sex selection, it is considered unconstitutional. RRA argues that, this kind of prohibition before the point of viability is unconstitutional. But, when the intention is to undergo abortion, for

According to the new statute, 48-hour waiting period even before the point of viability is considered unconstitutional. RRA’s argument on placing an undue burden on abortion even before the point of viability is considerable. According to the rule set forth by the U.S Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey “states could not impose an undue burden on women who, prior to viability of the fetus, sought to have an abortion.” According to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, the women seeking abortions must be given 24-hour waiting period (except in emergencies) to provide information on the abortion. In this new state statute, the 48-hour waiting period will be considered as a significant obstacle and also an undue burden, supporting the RRA’s argument against the enacted new