Constitutional amendment on abortion unlikely

In her letter supporting abortion, Judy Boucias makes a couple of statements that I believe are not correct.

First, she states, “the Women’s Health Protection Act, so that abortion up to the point of viability." The law allows abortion up to the time the baby is born, way past point of viability. I would also note that the point of viability is very fluid.

As technology improves the age of viability is getting younger all the time. If someday we can keep a baby alive as soon as the egg is fertilized, what then? Would she then agree that there could not be any abortion because point of viability is day one. This would then be more restrictive than most state laws and would be a national restriction.

Second, she states that the law would “be codified as a constitutional right.” This would certainly be challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court and they would have to decide the status of the federal law. Based on the current court's view, most likely the federal law would be found unconstitutional. Even before that it might, for a while be a federal law, at least until the courts decide on it. It would not be a constitutional right. For this to be the case there would have to be a constitutional amendment voted into law. This would never happen. It takes two-thirds of both House and the Senate to have an amendment put before the states. Then two-thirds of the states must ratify it. This would never happen in the current political environment.

DAVID CHINN

Sandpoint