justified.

The State will also argue that even if the Court does not find the precedent in Roe unworkable, the statute is still constitutional under the rulings of Roe. The Sate of Texarkana would attempt to demonstrate that the ACA doesn’t disregard a woman’s right to privacy granted by the Constitution, it only wishes to modify the point of compelling government interest due to the advancement of medicine. This case therefore is not a case on constitutional change, but merely on the change of government’s definition of personhood. The viability standard was essentially created by the courts using the scientific and medical standards at the time to establish a defined point in which the fetus is considered livable outside the womb. It was grounded in science and not the constitution and therefore should be subjected to change as the science and medicine evolves. The ACA does not seek to change the constitutional ruling in Roe and the subsequent cases in which it affirmed, but wishes to change the time in which States can take compelling interest in the fetus. If a fetus can live outside the womb, there is the same potentiality for life as a new born infant. Assuming you would never murder a new born because of your moral code and societal norms, there is no justification then for killing these fetuses that can survive in the months before the third trimester.
The State may also make an argument regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under this new Fetal Heartbeat Standard, the State would start having compelling government interest at the first detection of a heartbeat. Under this notion the fetus and the mother are defined as different individuals. With separate identities, it would immediately grant the fetus equal protections of the law. This would eliminate the mother’s right to abortion and grant the fetus right to life defined by the 14th Amendment.