Laserfiche WebLink
Comments on Lakewood Ordinance 503.ff <br />David F. Forte <br />1036 Wilbert Road <br /> <br />Considering that this ordinance was passed over forty years ago, and legislatures and courts have <br />passed and adjudicated dozens, if not hundreds, of laws and cases since 1977, it is remarkable <br />how consonant the ordinance is with current law dealing with abortion. <br /> <br />In general, among the relatively few differences between the ordinance and current law, the <br />ordinance is less restrictive on the performance of abortion than statutes or case law permits state <br />or local law to be. In any event, the most important section of the law may be 503.37, <br />Severability. Should any provision within the ordinance be held invalid, the rest of the ordinance <br />stands and is still enforceable. The benefits of the ordinance as written will remain, even if it <br />turns out that some section or another in not enforceable. <br /> <br />My conclusion is that this ordinance furthers the interests of the unborn child, the health of the <br />woman who elects to have an abortion, and the interests of those in healthcare, and, with but a <br />few suggested adjustments in language, should be maintained. This was a great and intelligent <br />effort of our city, and it deserves to be honored. <br /> <br />Below are quoted sections of the ordinance and my comments upon them. <br />1. PREAMBLE <br />WHEREAS, Council has considered that the Supreme Court of the United States and <br />other federal courts have declared that: <br />(1) State and municipal governments have legitimate interests in insuring <br />that abortions are performed under circumstances that assure maximum safety for the <br />patient; <br />(2) State and municipal governments have a valid and important interest in encouraging <br />childbirth; <br />(3) State and municipal governments have an important and legitimate interest in <br />protecting the potentiality of human life, and that although this interest does not alone <br />become sufficiently compelling to justify unduly burdensome state and/or municipality <br />interference with the woman's privacy until the time at which the fetus becomes viable, <br />that nevertheless this interest is still a significant state and/or municipality interest <br />existing throughout the entire course of the woman's pregnancy; and <br />(4) State and municipal governments have an unquestionably strong and legitimate <br />interest in encouraging normal childbirth… <br />1 <br /> <br />