Quote:
Originally Posted by timj219
There are some (on both sides) who view this as a first step to overturning RvW. There are many who opposed this law and dislike this opinion because for the first time since roe an antiabortion law with no "health of the mother" exception has been judged constitutional. The college of obgyns claims this procedure is sometimes the best choice for the health of the mother. Congress substituted their own judgement for the doctors and the supremes said that's OK.
|
If I recall the debate in congress correctly, it was determined that only the most rare and bizarre of circumstances could this procedure be medically necessary for the health of the mother. But such circumstances
could (and possible have at some point) existed.
However, it has always been held that just because it is possible to concieve of some situation in which a law could somehow manage to violate a constitutional right, that does not justify striking the law down as unconstitutional.
It was acknowledged in congress that it is the duty of the courts to recognize the rare, unusal cases where a particular law does not apply correctly and to act accordingly.
For almost every law, some circumstance could occur in which following it would be the wrong thing to do. In such cases, the courts are always expected to recognize this and make allowance for it.