Why is this? For 50 years, the term “viability”\u00a0was central\u00a0to the\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u00a0decision. The Supreme Court used it to define the point at which a state’s interest in potential life becomes “compelling,” allowing for greater regulation or outright bans on abortion.\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u00a0established that states couldn\u2019t ban abortions before this point.\u00a0The Court defined viability as the point when a fetus “has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”.<\/p>\n Also, at least\u00a011\u00a0states<\/a> have laws that use the term “viability,” which effects millions of people.<\/p>\n A PBS article<\/a> states that\u00a0 reproductive rights activists in Missouri wanted to get a ballot measure before voters in the fall of 2024 to roll back one of the strictest\u00a0abortion<\/a>\u00a0bans in the country and ensure access. The sticking point was how far they should go. The groups have been at odds over whether to include a provision that would allow the state to regulate abortions\u00a0after the fetus is viable,<\/em> a concession supporters of the language say was needed to persuade voters in a conservative state.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a divide that\u2019s not limited to Missouri, because in closely divided states, some abortion advocates worry that\u00a0failing to include limits related to viability will sink the measures. The Ohio state constitutional amendment\u00a0guaranteeing the availability of abortion, passed in 2022, allowed for limits on abortion after viability (with exceptions).<\/p>\n With thousands of pre-born children killed near or after viability every year in the United States, and hundreds of thousands such abortions in the world each year according to the World Health Organization, this is worth considering.<\/p>\n When Roe v. Wade was decided over fifty years ago, it was rare for premature infants born before 28 weeks to survive. Medical technology has changed that. Today, babies born at 22-24 weeks\u2019 gestation are surviving at increasing rates. Some are even surviving as early as 21 weeks<\/a>.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Journal of the American Medical Association<\/em>\u00a0published a study called \u201cSurvival Trends for Previable Births<\/a>\u201d (April 26, 2025) which documented treatment and survival rates for preemies born between 2014 and 2024. During the range of time studied, active treatment rates ranged from 28.8% to 78.6%. For 23-week infants, treatment rates were 87.4% to 94.7%, and 53.8% to 57.9% of those treated babies survived.<\/p>\n What does that say about the concept of “viability”? Does it really define whether a human life deserves protection?<\/p>\n Imagine if a pregnant woman in a city in the United States (such as Washington, Boston, or Philadelphia) that has top-tier neonatal intensive care units (NICU), her child, if born prematurely, would be considered viable. But if she travels to a remote or impoverished area without access to top-tier NICU care, that same child would no longer be viable. Has the child\u2019s humanity changed? Clearly not.<\/p>\n This example shows how the concept of viability is a reflection of external circumstances, not the immeasurable value of the child. Viability concerns the ability to sustain life, not the inherent dignity of that life.<\/strong>\u00a0 The concept of viability reflects a human being\u2019s relation to a certain environment at a certain point of development; it doesn\u2019t change whether that life is human or not.<\/p>\n Dr. Michael Harrison at the UCSF Fetal Treatment Center<\/a> has temporarily removed pre-born children from their pregnant moms and done surgery on the pre-born child outside the womb, and then reinserted the child into the mother, to be born later perfectly heathy.<\/p>\n Has the humanity of the preborn changed during these past fifty years? No. Viability is technically a measure of the advancement of medical technology and the current availability of neonatal intensive care units. It measures the advancement of external life support systems, not the humanness of the premature infant.<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s a reminder that medicine and science have come a long way \u2013 but also that medicine and science haven\u2019t been perfected yet. The child remains in the mother\u2019s womb up until at least 21 weeks because medical technology isn\u2019t yet able to provide an alternative environment in which he or she can survive.<\/p>\n There are some researchers who predict that if an artificial womb and placenta are developed, as well as further development of the use of oxygen-saturated liquid (instead of air), pre-born infants could survive less than 21 weeks of gestation. By 12 weeks the preborn child\u2019s whole system is developed and fully functioning. Viability isn\u2019t a fixed or definitive line.<\/p>\n Defending pre-viability abortion on the basis that the child can\u2019t survive if removed from the womb is logically inconsistent. The child can survive just fine if not removed from the womb until ready to exit it.<\/p>\n But one-day-old or one-year-old babies also can\u2019t survive on their own. They\u2019re no more viable than a pre-born baby; neither can survive alone. This could also be demonstrated with people who have severe disabilities or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are comatose, unconscious, under general anesthesia or suffer from advanced Alzheimer\u2019s. <\/em>Yet we don\u2019t deny their humanity.<\/p>\n Dependency is a feature of human vulnerability\u2014not a license to discard a life. Dependency doesn\u2019t affect the status of whether someone is human or not. It reflects the fragile state of the human being\u2019s situation, not their humanity.<\/p>\n Another major problem with viability is that it\u2019s the abortionists who are the final authority in determining whether their intended victim is viable or not.\u00a0 If there was ever a clear example of letting the wolf guard the sheep, this is it.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/baby-5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Shifting Line of Viability<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Location Determines Viability?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Medical Advancement Determines Viability?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Dependency Doesn\u2019t Justify Dehumanization<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/1blog-Roe-development.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n