Most recent public comments by Ms. Sarah Weddington https://nowcomment.com/users/567 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2225 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2225 That is only when they are born alive, and the fact that there is a wrong—the wrongful conduct of another is not the same in this situation. As to property rights, for example, there are even property rights that relate back to prior to conception, children that are not yet conceived can later inherit. But, that doesn’t—that did not prevent this Court in Griswold from holding people had the right to birth control. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2223 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2223 The state could obviously adopt that kind of statute and then the question would have to be adjudicated as to whether, for all purposes, that statute is constitutional. We are not alleging that there cannot be some kind of protection. For example, the property rights which, again, are contingent on being—upon being born alive that can be retroactive to the period prior to birth, but in this particular situation, we are alleging that this statute is unconstitutional. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2221 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2221 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2219 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2219 It is up to this Court to make that determination. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2216 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2216 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2214 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2214 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2212 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2212 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:16:53 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2210 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2210 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:16:53 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2208 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2208 I said that would be what would be involved if the facts were different and the state could prove that there was a person for the constitutional right. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2206 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2206 Even if the Court, at some point, determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2204 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2204 In this case, there has never been established that the fetus is a person or that it’s entitled to the Fourteenth Amendment rights or the protection of the constitution. It would be inconsistent to decide that, after birth, various classifications of persons would be subject to the death penalty or not but, here, we have a person, the woman, entitled to fundamental constitutional rights as opposed to the fetus prior to birth where there is no establishment of any kind of federal constitutional rights. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2202 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2202 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2166 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2166 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2164 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2164 Okay. I guess it was-- okay, in part, because the Hippocratic Oath, we discuss basically the constitutional protection we felt the woman to have. The Hippocratic Oath does not pertain to that. Second, we discuss the fact that the state had not established a compelling state interest. The Hippocratic Oath would not really pertain to that. And then, we discuss the vagueness jurisdiction. It seem to us that that-- that the fact that the medical profession, at one time, had adopted the Hippocratic Oath does not weight upon the fundamental constitutional rights involved. It is a guide for physicians, but the outstanding organizations of the medical profession have, in fact, adopted a position that says the doctor and the patient should be able to make the decision for themselves in this kind of situation. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2162 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2162 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2160 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2160 The first would be that situations and understandings change. In this case, for example, we have before the Court a medical amicus brief that was joined by all of the deans of the public medical schools in Texas. It was joined by numerous other professors of medicine. It was joined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. You know-- Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2157 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2157 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2155 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2155 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2153 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2153 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2151 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2151 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2149 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2149 It’s my opinion that that reliance was misplaced. That, in Vuitch, this Court had before it the D.C. statute which allowed abortion for the purpose of saving the life or the health, and this Court adopted the interpretation that health meant both mental and physical health. And, it seem to me, the Court’s language in that case talked a great deal about the fact that the doctor’s judgment goes to saving the health of the woman, that that’s the kind of judgment that he is used to making. In Texas, that’s not the judgment he is forced to make. The judgment in Texas is, is this necessary for the purpose of preserving the life of the woman, and the language of that statute has never been interpreted. That’s not the kind of judgment that a doctor is accustomed or perhaps even able to make. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2147 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2147 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2145 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2145 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:25 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2143 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2143 Wed, 01 Sep 2021 15:07:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2141 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2141 The legislature and in that situation engaged in the weighing process, and it seems to me that it has not yet been determined whether the state has the compelling state interest to uphold even that kind of regulation, but that’s really not before the Court in this particular case. We have no time limit. There is no indication in Texas that any would be applied in any future date. You know, we just don’t know that. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2139 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2139 There are some states that now have adopted time limits. Those have not yet been challenged and, perhaps, that question will be before this Court. Even those statutes though allow exceptions, well, for-- New York, for example, says an abortion is lawful up to 24 weeks, but even after the 24 weeks it is still lawful where there is rape or incest or where the mother’s mental or physical health is involved. In other words, even after that period, it’s not a hard and fast cutoff. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2137 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2137 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2135 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2135 If the state could show that the fetus was a person under the Fourteenth Amendment or under some other amendment or part of the constitution, then you would have the situation of trying-- you would have a state compelling interest which, in some instances, can outweigh a fundamental right. This is not the case in this particular situation. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:07 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2133 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2131 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2131 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:06 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2129 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2129 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2127 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2127 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2125 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2125 The state has shown no— Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2122 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2122 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:06 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2120 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2120 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:17:16 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2118 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2118 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:06 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2116 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2116 Thank you. Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:06 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2113 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2113 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:09:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2111 https://nowcomment.com/documents/1609?scroll_to=2111 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:07:06 -0600