Nebraska passed and signed a bill into law Tuesday April 13 that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks on the basis that fetuses at that stage of development can feel pain. This law directly challenges the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision, in which they said a state cannot place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the point of viability, which is currently ~22-24 weeks. This law, then, directly challenges the Supreme Court’s ruling, offering an alternative basis for prohibiting abortion, and which results in more restrictions against abortion. The law will surely be challenged. If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, Nebraska will have to persuade the court that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, and that the ability to feel pain should be the standard by which an “undue burden” is judged. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
April 14, 2010
Nebraska Law May Challenge Roe and Casey
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics[9] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
April 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Hi. So you are saying that a law is being passed to stop abortion after 5 months old fetuses because they feel pain? If that is the case, this is good if it stops any slaughtering of these babies.
I actually saw a You Tube on an abortion of a fetus that showed the baby twice opening its mouth in fear after the water was broke and as the person was trying to get it to destroy it. It is very sad that people say that the fetus is not human and that it is okay to kill it in general.
In Jesus name, abortion will be slowed down if it is not stopped.
Sis’ Cherylg
LikeLike
April 15, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Yes, that is what I am saying, and yes, I agree it is a good law. Granted, I do not think the baby’s ability to feel pain is what makes abortion wrong–it is wrong even before it is capable of feeling pain–but if a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks, I fail to see how any reasonable and compassionate person could say abortion is justified. So hopefully this law will help save more babies, and be one step along the way to the total abolition of abortion in this country.
Jason
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Abortion issue is merely one of the symptoms of not believing in God. The law tries to address the symptom on the surface, which in my opinion, won’t work. If people don’t agree with the law, there are many ways to get around it.
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Hi Hokmin,
Very true. This is just one of many symptoms of hearts not right with God. But that is why the law is there: to deal with those who have no fear of God! Law cannot change the heart, but it can influence behavior. The law is a moral teacher. It tells society what is right and what is wrong. That’s why, when abortion was legalized, the number of abortions skyrocketed in just a few short years. People came to believe it must be ok, otherwise the government would not allow it.
Does making a law against something eliminate the bad behavior? Not all of it, but making something illegal will always reduce the number of people participating in it, and it gives those in authority the ability to punish those who disobey.
So when it comes to abortion, if abortion was made illegal, there is no question that the number of abortions would drop dramatically. There would still be those who perform and seek them illegally, but at least we would have a legal leg to stand on for prosecuting such behavior.
The fact that laws against rape cannot stop all rapes does not mean we don’t make a law against rape. The same is true of abortion. It should be made illegal, not because it will prevent all abortions, but because it is immoral. The purpose of government and law is to promote the public good. Clearly, a law allowing mothers to kill their unborn children is not a public good. It is a public evil, and thus the law needs to be changed.
Jason
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Jason,
True. However, in general (may not apply to this case) I see that abortion is the topic heavily used by politicians to win votes.
In this context, we need to be more analytic and ask what will the vote gain or lost?
If I may, let’s translate abortion time frame to a baby growing to an adult of 18yr old, and applies that to the rape example. The 20 weeks is translated to 9 yr old. Is it OK to rape a person before he/she turns 9? I know it sounds crazy, but this is what the ‘value’ of that law.
I still think the abortion topic is a hot bargaining tool used by politicians to win vote. It is just political and does not hold much value.
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Hokmin,
I agree that some politicians use it as a political tool to get votes. But several things should be noted.
First, politicians do the same thing with a number of issues. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, they are acting as the representative of the people. There will be some things they stand for in their platform simply because they know the people want that view to be represented in their legislature, not because they are passionately committed to the cause. But what’s important is how they vote on bills related to the issue when they come up, not the level of conviction to which the politician holds to the pro-life ethic.
Secondly, the same can be said of politicians who support abortion. I think this says more about the nature of politics than anything else. Again, what’s important is that they stand for the issues that matter to their constituency, and vote the way they said they would vote. While I wish all pro-life politicians, Republican or Democrat, were passionately pro-life, I’ll take what I can get. If we hope to promote justice, we have to do it through legal means, and that means we have to work with politicians. When all is said and done, what matters most is how many “yeah” and “neah” votes there were on a given bill.
Thirdly, there are passionately pro-life politicians out there. Our last president was one of them, and it was reflected in his politics, and has had a major impact in curbing the destruction of human life. There are other congressman and senators who fit the bill as well. And these guys have worked tirelessly to pass legislation that is aimed at limiting abortion. And it has worked! The abortion rate has been declining for years, and it only happened once pro-life politicians started passing laws that put restrictions on abortion. Voting for pro-life politicians makes a difference.
Fourthly, there is only so much that any legislator can do because of Roe. Roe makes abortion legal. Apart from a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t stand a chance of passing), the only way to overturn the existing abortion law is to get the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. And the way we do that is by electing a president who will nominate Supreme Court justices that have a conservative judicial philosophy. Why? Because the only way you can get abortion rights from the Constitution is if you believe the actual words and intent of the Constitution is not the source of law. If you have a judge who holds to a conservative judicial philosophy, s/he is likely to rule Roe unconstitutional on the grounds that abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, and thus it is not within the Court’s purview to rule on the legality of abortion. That would return the matter to the states for them to decide for themselves whether to allow abortion. If we vote in presidents who believe the Constitution is like silly puddy, however, and he nominates justices who believe the same, then Roe will continue to be the law of the land.
So does it all boil down to who is president? No. It matters who we elect to the Senate as well, because the Senate has to approve the president’s nominations. If there are more pro-abortion senators (which are generally Democrats) in the Senate, then they will hold the majority on the judiciary committee and can block conservative justices from getting a vote. Even if they let them be voted on, since the Democrats would be in the majority, the nomination can easily be blocked (as it is clear from the past several nominee hearings that abortion is the litmus test Democrats are using). So our vote for U.S. senators matter as well.
Just like the abolition of slavery took decades to come to fruition, so too it will be with abortion. The way Wilberforce finally toppled the institution of slavery in Britain was by passing incremental laws along the way, and gaining one new pro-abolition member in the parliament after another. Eventually, his tireless efforts paid off. The same can be true of abortion. This is the greatest issue of moral injustice facing this country today. As Christians, we believe the purpose of government is to promote justice, and that should be our primary concern when we go to the voting booth.
I’m not sure what you were trying to convey in your rape example. Could you rephrase it? Thanks!
Jason
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I see that you are passionate about pro-life.
For pro-life to be successful, the society also has to provide the support for the to-be mother. The to-be mother probably has a reason to seek abortion. May be pressure from family and friends, may be financial, etc. These reasons are real and has to be resolved.
Thanks Bro.
God bless,
Hok-Min
LikeLike
May 16, 2010 at 11:16 am
Hok-Min,
Yes, very passionate. After all, we are talking about the killing of innocent human beings who are made in the image of God. I think abortion is the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Making it legal is the greatest moral injustice of our time. And since a Christian view of government sees government as the God-ordained institution to uphold justice and punish evildoers, we should be doing all we can to ensure that the government is working according to its God-ordained purpose.
Support is provided. There are more pregnancy crisis centers in the U.S. than abortion clinics. Pro-life advocates are very active in reaching out to mothers who find themselves in bad circumstances. They are offered all sorts of support.
But even if such support did not exist, there would still be no moral justification for allowing the slaughter of 1.2 million babies each year in this country, and upwards of 40 million each year worldwide. There is no moral justification for premediated homicide.
Jason
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 2:25 am
Hok-Min,
I just ran across an article in the NY Times dealing with pro-life legislation I found relevant to our conversation:
“About 370 state bills regulating abortion were introduced in 2010, compared with about 350 in each of the previous five years, and 250 a year in the early 1990s, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. At least 24 of this year’s bills have passed, and the final total may reach the high of 2005, when states passed 34 laws, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the institute.”
Jason
LikeLike