NARAL has a hissy fit - could they be right about MA?

Since you probably don't read NARAL's blog (usually, neither do I), I am sending you the link,   http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2012/04/what-would-happ.html. They claim that, if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would be illegal in Massachusetts. You will see from the legal article below they have greatly exaggerated. Even though some of Massachusetts' pre-Roe laws have not been repealed, it is doubtful they would stand. It would have been nice if NARAL had been right in this one case... Anne   PS Speaking of legal aspects, the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund Dinner is this Friday, April 27th, at the Marriott in Newton. It is always a fun event.  For more information or reservations, please contact Henry Luthin at luthin525@gmail.com.   The legal status of abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is overruled by Paul Benjamin Linton ABSTRACT: This article explores the legal status of abortion in the States if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Although an overruling decision eventually could have a significant effect on the legal status of abortion, the immediate impact of such a decision would be far more modest than most commentators-on both sides of the issue-believe.   More than two-thirds of the States have repealed their pre-Roe laws or have amended those laws to conform to Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion for any reason before viability and for virtually any reason after viability. Pre-Roe laws that have been expressly repealed would not be revived by the overruling of Roe. Only three States that repealed their pre-Roe laws (or amended them to conform to Roe) have enacted post-Roe laws attempting to prohibit some or most abortions throughout pregnancy. Those laws have been declared unconstitutional by the federal courts and are not now enforceable.   Of the less than one-third of the States that have retained their pre-Roe laws, most would be ineffective in prohibiting abortions. This is (1) because the laws, by their express terms or as interpreted, allow abortion on demand, for undefined health reasons or for a broad range of reasons (including mental health), or (2) because of state constitutional limitations. In yet other States, the pre-Roe laws prohibiting abortion may have been repealed by implication, due to the enactment of comprehensive post-Roe laws regulating abortion.   In sum, no more than twelve States, and possibly as few as eight, would have enforceable laws on the books that would prohibit most abortions in the event Roe, Doe and Casey are overruled. In the other States (and the District of Columbia) abortion would be legal for most or all reasons throughout pregnancy. Although the long-term impact of reversing Roe could be quite dramatic, the author concludes that the immediate impact of such a decision would be very limited. This article is current through May 1st, 2007.   MASSACHUSETTS: The principal pre-Roe statute prohibited performance of "unlawful" abortions. (140) Although the statute itself did not define what constituted an "unlawful" abortion, in a series of cases the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the statute to allow abortions for reasons of the pregnant woman's physical or mental health. (141) Pursuant to Roe, [section] 19 of ch. 272 was declared unconstitutional in an unreported decision of a three-judge federal district court. (142) The pre-Roe statute has not been repealed. (143) However, in light of the judicially engrafted exceptions for physical and mental health, it is doubtful that the statute would effectively prohibit any abortions even if Roe v. Wade were overruled. (144) Moreover, regardless of Roe, any attempt to prohibit abortion (at least before viability) in Massachusetts would be barred by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decisions recognizing a fundamental right to abortion on state constitutional grounds (due process). (145)                                                                                               Issues in Law & Medicine / Summer, 2007