The judiciary must be cautious if they are to defer to legislative judgements on abortions, specifically in regards to advancement in technology and medicine. A conservative legislature may use science to continually alter the moment of personhood. Making an exception in this case because of the advancement in medicine could potentially lead to the complete banishment of abortion. The legislature could use the advancement of science to lay a substantial claim that personhood starts at conception and therefore the State has compelling interest in the fertilized egg. If this scenario did in fact occur, the fundamental right to early stage abortion would effectively be destroyed. Although the ACA claims that the fetal heartbeat standard is consistent and convenient, there still is the potential for the science to detect a heartbeat sooner or claim that they could keep a fetus alive without a heartbeat. In general, granting the power of abortion regulations to the legislature can potentially cause a gradual shift away from the fundamental right to abortion, to the complete banishment of it all together.
The argument that would come in favor of the deferment to the legislature would be the notion that moral debates in America should not be left up to the judgement of the Court. The judges are not experts in these specific fields and cannot give answers that are always correct. These judgements should be decided in a democratic process by the people of the nation. The legislatures should be able to create regulations and legislation in accordance with the beliefs of their constituents.

VI. Justice of Permission

The judgement of this case is very difficult to do without acting on your opinion of the justice of abortion. Since abortion is not stately clearly in the physical writing of the Constitution, it requires an interpretive reading of the document. To identify abortion, you must believe in the right to privacy defined in the Due Process Clause. This notion of substantive due process is essentially contrived by previous readings of the amendment. Due to substantive due process’s lack of clear definition, the courts find the right to privacy because of their personal opinions on the justice of abortion. Therefore, in deciding the constitutionality of this case, one must be aware of his own opinions regarding abortion. In my opinion, the only way to eliminate this opinion would be to eliminate the courts judgement on moral cases entirely. If the question brought to the court is not specifically outlined by the writing of the Constitution, it should be voted upon by the people of the State in a democratic process. This would effectively eliminate any individual moral rulings and leave the decision up to the voice of the people.