This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

But that hadn't been the law since 1992 by ndtnguy

Casey ditched the trimester regimen.

This is the problem with trying to gauge public perception of these issues. People use phrases and don't know what they mean. We use "Roe" as a proxy for "Roe and it's progeny," even though the contours of Roe's rule weren't maintained by its progeny.

And as for the any-reason-up-to-birth, it's precisely that. That's what Doe and Casey permitted, because their jurisprudence didn't allow for practical enforcement of the restrictions they purported to permit. Gonzales v. Carhart allowed a restriction in the form of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, but that only applies to one form of procedure.