Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[mirraflake]

    Trump will sign more executive orders this morning imposing his will on the country as he sends his predecessor's agenda through the paper shredder
    First up: Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement
    The president is also expected to take action on a five-year lobbying ban for senior officials and prohibit NGOs from receiving aid if they perform abortions
    Also said to be looking at a hiring freeze for the executive branch and dozens of orders rolling back regulations  issued by the EPA


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WbOCO7Db
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html

[mirraflake]

So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.

[TomSea]

Y'all know he's still a NY Liberal and trojan horse for the Clintons.

[mystery-ak]

Trump revives funding ban to groups promoting abortion overseas

By Jennifer Haberkorn

01/23/17 11:58 AM EST

Updated 01/23/17 12:07 PM EST


If there was any doubt about President Donald Trump’s stance on abortion, he settled it Monday by using an executive order to bar U.S. aid to groups that provide or promote the procedure overseas.

The decision to reinstate the Republican policy known as the “Mexico City policy,” or the “global gag rule,” was delivered a day after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and two days after the Women's March on Washington and similar events across the country drew crowds to rally for reproductive rights, among other issues. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to appoint "pro-life" Supreme Court justices. He said that if the Roe decision is overturned, the question of whether abortion is legal would go back to individual states.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-revives-funding-ban-to-groups-promoting-abortion-overseas-234038

[Norm Lenhart]

So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.

It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.

[LMAO]

So much for him being pro abortion as a few here screech out.

@mirraflake

All good and I especially like the hiring freeze.  I will have no problem eating crow in four years and vote for him if he proves my skepticism wrong.

However I will not hesitate to be critical of him when called for.  But here's to hoping that my criticisms are few and my praises plenty

[Jazzhead]

The abortion issue is a snakepit.    If Trump wades in,  he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.

Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years.  The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights. 

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women.  Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.   

[TomSea]

The abortion issue is a snakepit.    If Trump wades in,  he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.

Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years.  The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights. 

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women.  Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.   

Perhaps one could comment on the actual issue,

Should the US be bankrolling overseas abortions and promotion of abortion?

International Planned Parenthood has been defunded.

No US tax payer dollars in the US or overseas; should go to planned parenthood or to any federal agency involved in abortion.

That equally is libertarian and conservative in view.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Hot Damn. I've never been happier to be wrong. @TomSea

Just to clarify I'm not on the Trump train yet, but this is great news.

[TomSea]

I get one's views on the topic of abortion in general;

But to come up with the argument we often hear, the SCOTUS ruled and women have their right really is a bit of a side-issue per funding Planned Parenthood;

If one is libertarian, I'd think they'd step up to the plate and indicate that our tax dollars should not be going to organizations like Planned Parenthood and probably politicized organizations like the NEA and National Endowment of the Arts.

[truth_seeker]

It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.

e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.

And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.

Don't several prominent politicos share this position?

[Bigun]

It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.

e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.

And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.

Don't several prominent politicos share this position?

I don't know how prominent I am these days but I have LONG held that exact view!  The Constitution does not have any shadows that can be divined by man at least!

[TomSea]

It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.

e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.

And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.

Don't several prominent politicos share this position?

Yes, that's what is said.

One of JFK's Supreme Court Justices was a dissenting view on the court (against abortion), unfortunately, some GOP SCOTUS picks were in favor of Roe V. Wade and a lot of those people were probably not fully informed on the issues back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

A lot of details in that.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I don't know how prominent I am these days but I have LONG held that exact view!  The Constitution does not have any shadows that can be divined by man at least!

Eemanations from the penumbra is legalese for pulled it out of our hats.

[Bigun]

Eemanations from the penumbra is legalese for pulled it out of our hats.

Well! Out of somewhere ant least!

[Jazzhead]

Perhaps one could comment on the actual issue,

Should the US be bankrolling overseas abortions and promotion of abortion?

International Planned Parenthood has been defunded.

No US tax payer dollars in the US or overseas; should go to planned parenthood or to any federal agency involved in abortion.

That equally is libertarian and conservative in view.

I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means.   The government can choose to spend or not spend taxpayer dollars on such things.   It's the legal/Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens that concern me.   A nonviable fetus isn't a citizen and has no rights vis a vis its mother, and I have no interest in a nonviable fetus gaining such rights at the expense of a woman's self-determination.   Use your powers of persuasion to convince a woman to do the right thing;  but don't agitate for the government to take her rights away. 

But the real point of my response is that Trump's agenda is an ambitious and in many respects a salutary one.  I want to see it succeed.  But Trump needs to pick his battles.  He can cripple his agenda by wading into the abortion snakepit, or he can propel that agenda by leaving womens' rights the hell alone.     

[DCPatriot]

The abortion issue is a snakepit.    If Trump wades in,  he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.

Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years.  The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights. 

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women.  Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.   

Something we can agree on, @Jazzhead   

[Idiot]

Trump revives funding ban to groups promoting abortion overseas

By Jennifer Haberkorn

01/23/17 11:58 AM EST

Updated 01/23/17 12:07 PM EST


If there was any doubt about President Donald Trump’s stance on abortion, he settled it Monday by using an executive order to bar U.S. aid to groups that provide or promote the procedure overseas.

The decision to reinstate the Republican policy known as the “Mexico City policy,” or the “global gag rule,” was delivered a day after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and two days after the Women's March on Washington and similar events across the country drew crowds to rally for reproductive rights, among other issues. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to appoint "pro-life" Supreme Court justices. He said that if the Roe decision is overturned, the question of whether abortion is legal would go back to individual states.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-revives-funding-ban-to-groups-promoting-abortion-overseas-234038

Never thought I'd say this........
God bless Donald Trump!

[Hoodat]

Y'all know he's still a NY Liberal and trojan horse for the Clintons.

Y'all know this directly contradicts what he said during the campaign.

[Hoodat]

Abortion is legal in this country

Based on what?  Please cite the law that legalizes abortion.

The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing

The task should be to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, stand against tyranny, and allow society self-determination.

.  .  .  not take away long-established rights. 

That same argument was made for the preservation of slavery.

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration .  .  .

If you stand for tyranny, then you are neither libertarian nor Conservative.

.  .  .  if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women.  Yes, abortion is wrong .  .  .

According to you, it is not wrong since you believe the right of a woman to murder a fetus supersedes the right of that unique living individual fetus to live.

but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.   

Again, based on what?  Is there something in the Constitution which prohibits states from regulating abortion?  Not even Roe says that.

[Jazzhead]

Hoodat,  I have no interest in arguing abortion with you.   I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others.   This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now.   That is how is should be, and must remain.   

I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas.  It has been a millstone around our necks for years.   It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives,  and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues.   Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses?   Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.

 There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police  power of the state.   Use them.  Use persuasion.  Support adoption.  Support better contraceptive options.  Preach abstinence.  But leave a woman's legal right the hell alone.     

[txradioguy]

It's easy (though welcome/a good thing) to do it overseas. And while it's again, a good thing, Lets see what he does about it HERE in America where he will face the wrath of all liberalism.

This is...IIRC merely reimplementing legislation that W had put in place that was reversed by EO under Obama.

I'm with you....lets see what he does in the U.S. first before we cheer him on this.

Like start with defending the states that have taken it upon themselves to cut off funding to the abortion mills within their own borders.

Hell I'd be happy if his DoJ decided to go after the ghouls that were busted selling baby parts.

[driftdiver]

Hoodat,  I have no interest in arguing abortion with you.   I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others.   This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now.   That is how is should be, and must remain.   

I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas.  It has been a millstone around our necks for years.   It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives,  and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues.   Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses?   Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.

 There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police  power of the state.   Use them.  Use persuasion.  Support adoption.  Support better contraceptive options.  Preach abstinence.  But leave a woman's legal right alone.   

@Jazzhead
WOW, so the right to kill another human is the most precious right for women?  Why are so many women against abortion then?

Why do  you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue?  Should our right to vote be restricted?  Should there be a gender test on every issue?

The fact is that abortion is big business.  Young children must be encouraged to have sex to continue the pipeline.  They will not accept anything that detracts from that goal.

[r9etb]

The abortion issue is a snakepit.    If Trump wades in,  he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.

Abortion is legal in this country - has been for 40 years.  The task should be to persuade women to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights. 

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of fetuses over women.  Yes, abortion is wrong - but this is something that women have the right to decide for themselves.   

Let's cut to the chase and substitute a word in your argument.


The slavery issue is a snakepit.    If Trump wades in,  he'll be unnecessarily jeopardizing the rest of his agenda.

Slaveryis legal in this country - has been for 87 years.  The task should be to persuade slave-owners to do the right thing, not take away long-established rights. 

I'm not the only libertarian/conservative who will break with the new administration if it favors the legal "rights" of slaves over slave-owners.  Yes, slavery is wrong - but this is something that slave-owners have the right to decide for themselves.  

The issue is exactly the same -- denying humanity and human rights. 

[txradioguy]

It has been my understanding for years, that "constitutional conservatives" believed Roe v. Wade was very bad law.

e.g. that it found a "privacy right" where none exists in the US Constitution.

And therefore reversal of Roe would return abortion to individual states, to set their own laws.

Don't several prominent politicos share this position?

@truth_seeker Your understanding is correct.  Justice Brennan set the groundwork for this mythical "right" in his decision in two separate cases...Griswold v Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. 

The first one created the mythical "privacy right" for married couples and the second one extended it to unmarried couples.

It should be up to the individual sates to determine whether abortion is allowed within their borders or not.  Just as several other found "rights" should be left to the states...but instead the Libs...via the courts...have forced it upon us via the myth of the "living Constitution".

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead

Why do  you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue?  Should our right to vote be restricted?  Should there be a gender test on every issue?

@driftdiver

The standard retort to your question is because it's their body.  Somehow that eliminates us totally from the picture...unless of course the woman decides to have the baby then it's only the man's wallet the woman is interested in.

[Mom MD]

I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means.   The government can choose to spend or not spend taxpayer dollars on such things.   It's the legal/Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens that concern me.   A nonviable fetus isn't a citizen and has no rights vis a vis its mother, and I have no interest in a nonviable fetus gaining such rights at the expense of a woman's self-determination.   Use your powers of persuasion to convince a woman to do the right thing;  but don't agitate for the government to take her rights away. 

But the real point of my response is that Trump's agenda is an ambitious and in many respects a salutary one.  I want to see it succeed.  But Trump needs to pick his battles.  He can cripple his agenda by wading into the abortion snakepit, or he can propel that agenda by leaving womens' rights the hell alone.   

I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right"  There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so

[txradioguy]

I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right"  There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so

  here...I'll share my popcorn with you.

[Silver Pines]

Hoodat,  I have no interest in arguing abortion with you.   I think it's wrong just as you do, but I oppose the government imposing my or your morality on others.   This is a decision that every adult woman in America has had the right to make FOR HERSELF for over 40 years now.   That is how is should be, and must remain.   

I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas.  It has been a millstone around our necks for years.   It is a narrow issue pushed by religious social conservatives,  and they simply cannot be permitted to have their way, at the expense of the rest of our issues.   Why should any woman agree to the abrogation of the most precious right she possesses?   Of course women will fight this tooth and nail - with good reason.

 There are all kinds of tools for persuading women to do the right thing, short of utilizing the police  power of the state.   Use them.  Use persuasion.  Support adoption.  Support better contraceptive options.  Preach abstinence.  But leave a woman's legal right the hell alone.   

@Jazzhead

I don't recognize a woman's right to still the beating heart within her body, and I most certainly wouldn't describe it as "precious."  The simple fact is that a woman no more has the right to take innocent human life than anyone else on the planet, under any other circumstances. 

The more I think about "precious" regarding the practice of abortion, when it's been proven that babies feel pain when they're torn apart, the sicker I feel.  Good God.

[Silver Pines]

This is...IIRC merely reimplementing legislation that W had put in place that was reversed by EO under Obama.

I'm with you....lets see what he does in the U.S. first before we cheer him on this.

Like start with defending the states that have taken it upon themselves to cut off funding to the abortion mills within their own borders.

Hell I'd be happy if his DoJ decided to go after the ghouls that were busted selling baby parts.

@txradioguy

This is my understanding, as well, and I agree with everything you've said here.

[r9etb]

I'm curious how murder is a woman's "right"  There is no such right in the constitution despite the tortured logic that led the supreme court to declare it so

When I've had to argue the point, I've found that an effective argument goes along the lines of, "if you plan to kill a child, you ought to have a really good reason for doing so.  What, in your view, is a good reason to kill a child?"

It gets away from that argument about whether or not it really is a human being -- of course it is a human being, and any honest person will admit it.

The public debate never does seem to be conducted on those terms.  However, technology (in the form of ever more detailed ultrasounds) has a way of bending the discussion our way. 

[dfwgator]

When I've had to argue the point, I've found that an effective argument goes along the lines of, "if you plan to kill a child, you ought to have a really good reason for doing so.  What, in your view, is a good reason to kill a child?"

It gets away from that argument about whether or not it really is a human being -- of course it is a human being, and any honest person will admit it.

The public debate never does seem to be conducted on those terms.  However, technology (in the form of ever more detailed ultrasounds) has a way of bending the discussion our way.

So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth.  So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.

[r9etb]

So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth.  So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.

Only if you think the child is not a separate human being.  Which, of course, it is.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Jazzhead

I don't recognize a woman's right to still the beating heart within her body, and I most certainly wouldn't describe it as "precious."  The simple fact is that a woman no more has the right to take innocent human life than anyone else on the planet, under any other circumstances. 

The more I think about "precious" regarding the practice of abortion, when it's been proven that babies feel pain when they're torn apart, the sicker I feel.  Good God.

Kat, all you need understand is what he said. "I am sick of this issue keeping conservatives and libertarians from advancing their agendas."

You have heard me say that some people are perfectly willing to trade human life for a 'win". This is exactly that. No more, no less. And it ain't libertarian OR conservative. It is 100% liberal and 100% evil.

This is why there is little point arguing with such people. You cannot convince evil to not be what it is.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

The standard retort to your question is because it's their body.  Somehow that eliminates us totally from the picture...unless of course the woman decides to have the baby then it's only the man's wallet the woman is interested in.

@txradioguy

I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus.   When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.

[r9etb]

I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus.   When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.

It does, indeed.  Especially when so many of the arguments for killing babies seem to boil down to matters of convenience.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus.  When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.

Exactly!

[Jazzhead]

@txradioguy

I made up my mind when I decided a baby is a baby, not a fetus.   When making decisions treat the baby like a person and the rest of the decisions are much easier.

I agree!   But it's not up to you or me - or the government -  to make that decision for others.  Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. 

Use your powers of persuasion.   Don't doubt the power you possess.   But it's not the government's power. 

[r9etb]

I agree!   But it's not up to you or me - or the government -  to make that decision for others.  Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. 

Use your powers of persuasion.   Don't doubt the power you possess.   But it's not the government's power.

Um.... you think we get to pick and choose which humans we can kill? 

[TomSea]

"I have no objection to an end to "bankrolling overseas abortions", whatever exactly that means."

Sorry, I assumed one reads the article under discussion. This must mean exactly whatever that means.

Reversing a policy Obama put into place on the same day eight years ago when he began his administration, Trump also moved to prohibit non-governmental organizations from receiving foreign aid if they perform abortions. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WcamCBWv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This of promoting abortion or even performing abortions overseas, in Honduras or Kenya or whatever backwater there is, has always bothered me.

[txradioguy]

I agree!   But it's not up to you or me - or the government -  to make that decision for others.  Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. 

Use your powers of persuasion.   Don't doubt the power you possess.   But it's not the government's power.

And yet right now it IS the Federal government's power to dictate to the states that they MUST provide this service...even in states where the majority of the citizens living there don't want it.

So despite what you said YES the government is making the decision for others.

And thanks to abortion on demand...the birth replacement rate in this country is as bad as Europe's...we've become a dying nation without enough people being born each year to outpace the dead.

[txradioguy]

Um.... you think we get to pick and choose which humans we can kill?

The ironic thing is that the same SCOTUS Justice that laid the groundwork for Roe v Wade...was also on the majority opinion that found the death penalty unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

[TomSea]

Planned Parenthood or the like, seem to get money from people like Buffet, Gates, probably Soros, all kinds of places. So, they really do not need to get that $500 million plus of grant money a year.

A lot of this is what this specific discussion is about. At least, to most people.

[Norm Lenhart]

I agree!   But it's not up to you or me - or the government -  to make that decision for others.  Each and every adult woman must have the right to decide for herself. 

Use your powers of persuasion.   Don't doubt the power you possess.   But it's not the government's power.

By that logic you'd be fine with anyone walking in and killing you if they chose that decision. Thats insanity. A baby/You. No difference. Both human life.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

    Trump will sign more executive orders this morning imposing his will on the country as he sends his predecessor's agenda through the paper shredder
    First up: Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement
    The president is also expected to take action on a five-year lobbying ban for senior officials and prohibit NGOs from receiving aid if they perform abortions
    Also said to be looking at a hiring freeze for the executive branch and dozens of orders rolling back regulations  issued by the EPA


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html#ixzz4WbOCO7Db
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4148084/Proposed-Trump-executive-orders-trade-EPA-hiring-freeze.html

Semantics here, but the title is erroneous.

Executive Orders are not Legislation.  Big difference, especially for those who further a Constitutional Republic.

It is usually best if Legislation was actually used for this rather than some Executive Action, as a future President cannot easily undo Legislation.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

So a child is technically a "part" of a woman's body until she gives birth.  So by that logic she should be able to kill the child right up to the point where she gives birth.

That's why the baby has unique DNA from the moment it was conceived. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
WOW, so the right to kill another human is the most precious right for women?  Why are so many women against abortion then?

The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination.  A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce.   That right must exist, in my view, so long as the fetus is not yet viable.   

Why do  you seek to eliminate men from this critically important issue?  Should our right to vote be restricted?  Should there be a gender test on every issue? 

Men don't endure the pain and burden of gestation and childbirth.   Men have, again in my view, no right whatsoever to force a woman to abort, or to give birth.  But by supporting their partner, they can persuade her to do the right thing.   

The fact is that abortion is big business.  Young children must be encouraged to have sex to continue the pipeline.  They will not accept anything that detracts from that goal.

What cynical bullcrap.   This is about the right of a woman to decide her future for herself, by herself.  It may have taken thousands of years for women to gain such autonomy;  I for one refuse to abide religious zealots who insist the state force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.     

[dfwgator]

The right that's precious is the right to one's self-determination.  A woman must have the right to decide whether to reproduce.   That right must exist, in my view, so long as the fetus is not yet viable.   

And can you identify that "magic moment" when a fetus becomes "viable"?

[Jazzhead]

And yet right now it IS the Federal government's power to dictate to the states that they MUST provide this service...even in states where the majority of the citizens living there don't want it.

So despite what you said YES the government is making the decision for others.

No government - state or federal - should have the power to deny a woman her INDIVIDUAL right of self-determination.   

[Jazzhead]

And can you identify that "magic moment" when a fetus becomes "viable"?

What is important is that the woman have a real and meaningful right to choose her future.   I don't object to a statute setting a specified time at which viability is assumed.  But a law that prohibits abortion before viability  - as reasonably defined - cannot stand.