case also outlines the fact that the government only has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus once it reaches viability in the third trimester. This precedent set by Roe v. Wade is difficult to overturn on merely a change in medicine and technology. It is not a question on the advancement in science but a fundamental right rooted in the substantive due process of the 14th Amendment.

Planned Parenthood will also use the argument of Equal Protection. Moving the definition of life from viability to fetal heartbeat also has implications regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This change in the timeline forces more women into the burden of motherhood. This conscripted burden affects women’s ability to contribute in the economy and establish their own lives. Motherhood requires years of service without a financial compensation. Men do not have the same obligations as women regarding pregnancy. They may have to financially support the child, but they do not bear the burden of childbirth pain and the physical tolls of pregnancy. These clear disparities regarding men and women during pregnancy creates an unequal citizenship stature that clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause. As Justice Blackmun stated in Casey, “this assumption- that women can simply be forced to accept the natural status and incidents of motherhood- appears to rest upon women’s role that has triggered the protection of the Equal Protection clause.”
The State of Texarkana will refer to technology and science when presenting their argument for the “fetal heartbeat standard.” First, the State will argue Roe’s viability standard is unprincipled and unworkable. Due to these conditions, the notion of starre decisis holds substantially less weight. The changing technology described in this case essentially makes the viability standard unworkable and therefore allows for a changing of the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. As modern technology advances, so does the chances of fetus survivability outside the womb, therefore changing its viability. This can present numerous problems with establishing viability strictly at the third trimester. The advantage of the “fetal heartbeat standard” is that it does not change even with the advancement of medicine. It establishes a point of personhood that is consistent and detectable.

Texarkana will further their argument for the “fetal heartbeat standard” and the by acknowledging that Courts have overturned precedents regarding the status of personhood before. For example, Brown v. Board of Education changed the precedent of separate but equal created by Plessy v. Ferguson. This solidified t