Monica Ciolfi is a lawyer, co-leader of the Abortion Freedom Project at Kent Street Coalition, and former president of NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire Foundation.

You might not think a Georgia state court ruling striking down a six-week abortion ban has much relevance for New Hampshire and our 24-week ban. But the reasoning of the Fulton County Superior Court judge applies to all abortion restrictions and is worth contemplating this election season when candidates’ views of the proper role of government in regulating abortion are at the fore.

The decision offers a compelling analysis for filtering arguments about protecting so-called “pre-born life” at any stage of pregnancy.

In last month’s decision in Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v Georgia, the judge ruled that because Georgia is unable to care for a pre-viable fetus, it has no business regulating its treatment by the only person who is able: the pregnant woman. Without the ability to step in and keep that fetus alive, the government may not dictate whether and how the person carrying it chooses to do so.

The Court held that because fetuses are not yet “persons” under the law, and because the state is unable to turn fetuses into persons, there exists no government interest for it to advance or protect. It is not for judges or politicians to tell women what to do with their bodies while the fetus cannot survive outside the uterus any more than it would be to “force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.”

Contrary to the Georgia legislature’s determination, the judge determined that under the “liberty” provisions of the Georgia Constitution, the embryo and mother are not co-equal. Because “there is no one else who can assume that woman’s role and keep the pregnancy alive and healthy during those five long months,” there is no basis for government infringement of her bodily autonomy.

To drive home the point, the judge put it bluntly that “women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote.” Until there is a “person” for it to protect, the Georgia Constitution bars state government from outlawing the pregnant woman’s acts vis-a-vis the fetus.

Where does government get its authority, that is, its “interest,” to restrict someone’s freedom, if not to protect another person? Abortion bans purport to advance the government’s “compelling” interest in protecting “unborn” life. Yet, the state’s inability to sustain that life debunks that justification. In the absence of a governmental interest, there exists only the interest of the pregnant person. If the pregnant person wants to terminate their pregnancy, it is their right and theirs alone. As the U.S. Supreme Court itself has held, “every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.”

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

Here in New Hampshire, we ban abortions at 24 weeks of gestation. At that point, fetal viability ranges from 42 to 59 percent, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Although those are not great odds for life outside the womb, some argue the government has an interest in that potential person. But before weighing the respective interests of the government and the pregnant person seeking an abortion, let’s consider the circumstances.

First, the number of pregnancy terminations after 24 weeks, nationwide, is exceedingly small, representing around 1 percent of all abortions. Also, ponder why women have abortions after 24 weeks. Virtually every one of those rare procedures involves medical concerns such as fetal anomalies, maternal health, or life endangerment, or are the result of barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion, according to Kaiser Family Foundation research. These are not “elective” abortions under any conceivable definition of that term.

So, armed with the commonsense reasoning of the Sistersong holding, and the facts surrounding abortions subject to the New Hampshire ban, let’s assess our federal and state candidates’ positions about the role of government in restricting abortion access. We know former President Donald Trump has stated women should be punished for having abortions. We know that as a U.S. Senator, Kelly Ayotte supported a pre-viability (i.e., 20-week) abortion ban. We know that the Republican candidates for Executive Council have all either voted to defund clinics that provide pre-viability abortion care or indicated they would if elected. We know that last session, state Republican legislators sponsored a bill to ban abortions at 15 weeks.

When it comes to abortion, Republicans have made clear they do not recognize the proper limits of government. On Nov. 5, let’s remind the party of small government there is no legitimate basis for the government forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term. Vote for those who will respect the Constitution’s protections from government overreach into pregnant women’s bodies.