 |
| Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch |
She wrote that the split which needed to be remedied is, “whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey’s ‘undue burden’ standard or Hellerstedt’s balancing of benefits and burdens.”
“This case remains an ideal vehicle to promptly resolve both that question and the first question presented—the contradictions in this Court’s decisions over use of ‘viability’ as a bright line for measuring pro-life legislation,” Fitch stated.
In her statement, she noted that the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion as the Sixth and Eighth Circuit Courts, something the courts have publicly acknowledged.
