Today in Supreme Court History: June 29, 1992

6/29/1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey is decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (decided June 29, 1992): invalidated on "undue burden" grounds Pennsylvania statute requiring spousal notice for abortion; left in place requirement of waiting period and parental consent for minors

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (decided June 29, 2004): enjoined on First Amendment grounds enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act which penalized providers that allowed minors to access "harmful content"; injunction ended up being permanent

Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2021): federal agency can exercise eminent domain to seize land owned by a State (here, right-of-law for a natural gas pipeline)

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (decided June 29, 1972): death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of Eighth Amendment, citing "evolving standards of decency" (abrogated by Gregg v. Georgia, 1976)

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2020): the makeup of the CFPB (a single Director with significant executive authority removable by President only "for cause") violated separation of powers

Miller v. Johnson,515 U.S. 900 (decided June 29, 1995): struck down attempt to create second black majority Congressional district due to grotesque boundaries (on the map it looked like a cat with a very long tongue jumping up to snare a spider)

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (decided June 29, 2009): Title VII (equal opportunity in hiring) was violated when city hired black firefighters for management positions even though none passed the qualifying exam (whereas 19 white and 1 hispanic applicants did pass)

Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (decided June 29, 1984): struck down Hawaii's tax exemption for in-state manufactured brandy as violating Dormant Commerce Clause

[SMP0328]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (decided June 29, 1992): invalidated on "undue burden" grounds Pennsylvania statute requiring spousal notice for abortion; left in place requirement of waiting period and parental consent for minors (overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (decided June 24, 2022))

FIFY

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm not sure Dobbs completely overruled it. Dobbs was not a totally "pro-life" holding. Waiting periods and parental consent might still be issues in limited circumstances.

However, summarizing all these abortion cases over the past 50 years I realize how much overruling happened on Friday.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dobbs was hardly a pro-life holding at all; Even the states that have effectively legalized elective abortions right to the point of delivery face no constitutional issue with Dobbs. They can have it all, they just need to get it from the state legislatures, not the federal courts.

I suppose there's still room for the Court to say that parental consent is constitutionally required for ANY medical procedure, but it wouldn't be a ruling specific to abortion.

[AmosArch]

Dobbs might end up protecting abortion from federal meddling. Maybe once the leftoids realize this then inform their media puppets who will inform the twitter bluechecks and tiktok influencers who will instruct their legions of drones and bots they will stop bellyaching over it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm not sure Dobbs completely overruled it. "

Be sure

"Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We
now overrule those decisions and return that authority to
the people and their elected representatives" pg 79

[DaivdBehar]

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (decided June 29, 2009): Title VII (equal opportunity in hiring) was violated when city hired black firefighters for management positions even though none passed the qualifying exam (whereas 19 white and 1 Hispanic applicants did pass)

Did the lawyer dumbass bother to ask for the reliability and validity statistics of these examinations? Why not? Because the lawyer is a know nothing dumbass.

[Frank Drackman]

Requiring Parental Consent for Minor's Abortion?!?!?!? That's literally Pre-Nazi (why is it always "Pre-Nazi" and not just "Nazi"?) Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank "Following Stare Decisis means we'd still be burning Witches" (why doesn't anyone say it "We-Otch"?)

[DaivdBehar]

The law is mired in the 13th Century. Nothing from that time is acceptable today.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't had the time to pay too much attention to these Jan 06 hearings, but seems like we had a humdinger yesterday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, attractive white female gives hearsay testimony. Star chamber stuff.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Star chamber was a secret court that could exercise judicial power, this is a public legislative hearing. Not the same.

To the extent that what she said would be admissible later: some was hearsay, some wasn’t, lots would be admissible under the exemptions or exclusions or the simple fact the statements testified to aren’t trying to demonstrate the truth of the matter asserted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kangaroo.court

[LawTalkingGuy]

*Kangaroo Legislative Fact Finding Committee that can at best prepare a report, make referrals, and make legislative recommendations.

[Sarcastr0]

FRE 801(d)(2)

[Bob from Ohio]

"attractive white female "

She's no Fawn Hall.

[Mr. Bumble]

She's no Lizzo either.

[Sarcastr0]

Whenever people start talking about females, I picture Ferengi.

[DaivdBehar]

She is very attractive for a Democrat. That is the party of the ugly people. They are retaliating against a country that mistreated them so much. Turn on MSNBC. Everyone on looks like a circus freak with hideous looking faces.

[Frank Drackman]

Judge Judy would have thrown that Trollop out on her surgically enhanced booty, why is Hearsay permissible in Congressional Hearings,
I mean besides how all of their other crimes are (permissible)

[David Nieporent]

She testified for hours. One anecdote was hearsay (which, of course, is rather a red herring since hearsay is a rule of evidence in court). The rest was not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Waiting to see the Republican “spin” on it. It’s taking them a little longer than usual to think something up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think they settled on: we failed evidence.

[DaivdBehar]

The spin? Hire a b***h, hire a sn***h. The Secret Service is saying none of that happened, and they are doing so under oath.

[David Nieporent]

Liar. They are doing so via spokespeople on twitter. She was under oath.

[Frank Drackman]

keep your panties on, I hear there are some SS (not that one, the Secret Service) agents who beg to differ with Ms(you have to pronounce it like William Juffuhsun Clinton did, "Mizzzzzzzzzzzzz.....") Boobjob's (hey, she got a good one) Hearsay.
See, the thing is, they're supposed to be "Secret" so they're shy about going on National TV before a panel of Criminals, but they don't like being lied about.
It's like how I could say (Reverend) Arthur C. Kirkland bragged about how many boys he buggered one weekend, even it was true (Probably was, knowing the Reverend) it'd still be Hearsay,

Jeezus, the only "Law School " I attended was hundreds of "Judge Judy, Perry Mason, Boston legal, and Law & Order" and I'm the one explaining Hearsay???

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

Great job, assholes:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/tears-confusion-at-abortion-provider-after-heartbeat-bill-becomes-law/U6OK5WPVGJDPVMB776ZNQPMGYI/

“Today we saw a patient in Dayton who has cancer. Her doctors told her she would have to terminate before she received chemotherapy treatment. She will have to travel to Indiana. A mom brought her daughter in and doesn’t own a car. She will have to rent one to get her daughter to her appointment in Indianapolis later this week.”

The people who should be delivering this news aren’t doctors btw. It should be putzes like Blackman who should deliver it, since the news actually has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with federalist society dorks finally getting what they want. An image of a flop sweat covered Blackman with his goofy hair and ill-fitting suit telling a woman that she’s just going to have to let cancer win because of states rights and deeply rooted traditions will illustrate how deeply messed up this is.

And before anyone says “but she’s going to Indiana,”
we all know you don’t want that option to last much longer, so spare us, okay?

[mtkesq]

Which one of the two ties that he owns will Josh Blackman wear to deliver the news? Will he do a 10 part series of a 10 part series on telling the woman that has more repetition than the joint Dobbs dissent?

[bernard11]

Well said.

"Putz" is too mild a term for gloating assholes like Blackman.

[Mr. Bumble]

Way to win friends and influence people.

"The law does provide two exceptions, however. An abortion can be conducted after the six-week mark if a physician finds the procedure "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." It can also be conducted if there is no fetal heartbeat."

[Sarcastr0]

Think this through, Bumble - which of those exceptions do you think applies in this case?

I know you can do it!

[Mr. Bumble]

The story is sparse on details, but what is known is that the woman has cancer (what type and where we don't known) and requires treatment (chemo/radiation?) which I am assuming will kill or harm the baby.
Options are, preform an abortion before treatment or begin treatment and kill the baby. Seems like existing law would allow for the pre-treatment option.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you think it’s in any way safe to slowly kill the baby inside the womb with chemo instead of performing an abortion?

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently you are the lawyer who pound the table.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you need to walk through the law here, not just waive your hands.

Sure, the baby will die, but that's not at play in these exceptions.

Which of the two exceptions do you see here:
-necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman?
-[necessary] or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman?

Neither of those is clear cut.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Neither of those is clear cut."

She allegedly has cancer, she will die without treatment, abortion will enable her to get treatment, she [probably] won't die then.

Its extremely clear cut. But you, and the other libs here, would rather attack Blackman or Mr. Bumble.

[Sarcastr0]

Does she need the abortion to get the treatment? 'Her doctors told her she would have to terminate before she received chemotherapy treatment' does not make it clear this is a threat to her life.

Plus, of course, chemo can be delayed sometimes - what is the risk level when it rises to 'she will die without treatment?'

This is complicated stuff, and you're looking pretty dumb trying to make it simple.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is fairly complicated.

The chemo itself will cause an abortion. That abortion would occur unscheduled during the chemo, which could have very dangerous implications for the mother's health, as people undergoing chemo are in a pretty fragile state. So it is perfectly reasonable medical judgement to want any abortion to precede the chemo.

I think the hospital reasonable worries about legal risks if they do it themselves, even though it appears to me, as a fairly pro-life guy, that this is a reasonably justified abortion.

I gather that they're having some severe scheduling problems for currently legal abortions, due to a crush of purely elective abortions displacing actually medically justified ones. Strange medical practice that's incapable of triage, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, technically, the abortion isn't actually necessary to get the treatment, the hospital is just demanding that it precede the treatment, as the treatment itself will cause an abortion under uncontrolled circumstances, which would be medically inadvisable for the woman.

I think it reasonably falls under the exception, though, as the chemo is absolutely going to cause an abortion anyway, it itself falls under an exception in that regard, so we're just talking about the details of how the abortion takes place.

But I can understand the hospital's concern about potential liability if they do it themselves.

Strange law that has a difficult edge case, I gather that sort of thing normally never happens, right?

[Sarcastr0]

I think it reasonably falls under the exception, though, as the chemo is absolutely going to cause an abortion anyway, it itself falls under an exception in that regard,

Not seeing that in the text. Where are you seeing that?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm a former cancer patient, and human biology was one of my majors in college. I don't need some reporter to tell me that chemotherapy can cause an abortion.

Depends on gestational stage, and the particulars of the treatment, of course, and the report doesn't give any details about either element. But I think it's reasonable to assume her oncologist isn't recommending the abortion just for laughs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But I can understand the hospital's concern about potential liability if they do it themselves."

They can easily seek a declaratory judgment. If its a minor, Probate Court.

Then there would be no doubt. [there is no doubt]

[LawTalkingGuy]

The fact that you think it is good and normal to file a freaking dec action before a person can proceed with chemo therapy shows just how far gone you are on this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Seriously: what if the state opposes? What if they want a hearing? Do you really want oncologists to have to take time out of their day to testify that this person needs her pregnancy terminated to proceed with chemo!?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's pretty normal that laws having to do with life and death will have edge cases, and that you might want a declaratory judgement when walking to that edge, especially when it's the first time you've visited that particular edge.

I understand that you're mad about the pro-choice side no longer being gifted an automatic win by the judiciary, but get over it, and look for your wins through the democratic process, instead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hows just how far gone you are on this"

Courts deal with life and death health cases all the time. "Plug pulling" cases, judicial bypass for minors, and others.

Do her doctors want to help her or just arrange for tears on tv?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Do her doctors want to help her or just arrange for tears on tv?”

Fuck you. You are a genuinely bad person. I only hope that one day your cruelty and callousness will catch up to you and you’ll regret that you were ever this way.

[David Nieporent]

They can easily seek a declaratory judgment. If its a minor, Probate Court.

You think they can get a declaratory judgment as to whether a particular act would constitute a crime? Is that something in Ohio law? Because that's not usually a thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, Captain Sanctimonious.

You want her tears too, so you can call pro-lifers bad names.

[Sarcastr0]

This is complicated stuff, and you're looking pretty dumb trying to make it simple.

That seems less like sanctimony and more like you need to stop just insisting and start showing your work.

[John F. Carr]

A former coworker's former wife chose option (C): put off chemo until after the baby is born. The baby was born. She died.

[Bob from Ohio]

"which of those exceptions do you think applies"

"necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman"

That was easy.

[F.D. Wolf]

Perhaps the idiot abortion provider who is quoted should actually read the law which provides an exception for "medical emergencies", defined as:

a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.

Seems like this would qualify, Of course, the story is probably bullshit anyway, but if it's true, they're probably just pissed they have to fill out a form for the government. Abortionists aren't big on record keeping.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What’s immediate about it? Chemo can wait, right?

[F.D. Wolf]

Well, I'm no oncologist, but usually, yes. Doctors prefer to wait until the second trimester to begin chemo. I, mean, otherwise, she might have a miscarriage, and what better way to prevent a miscarriage than an abortion?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Doctors prefer to wait until the second trimester to begin chemo. "

Which doctors? The superstitious, knuckle-dragging, right-wing doctors who attended nonsense-teaching, backwater schools?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, all Amurican Medical Schools are roughly the same quality, it's better to graduate from W Va. with good board scores than Johns Hopkins with bad ones, unlike Law Schools, such as https://law.udc.edu/ (Ya gotta watch the Video, I can just see Reverend Arthur/Jerry playing the kettle drums, spinning some 45's, Free stylin' some Fresh Rhymes, and finishing up with a Street Taco (better than his usual favorite)

Frank "graduated with highest temperature in my class"

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, just a "Safe for Work" warning,
make sure you have your Eclipse glasses on when the "Better" lawyer with the big booty starts Twerking....

Frank "I warned you"

[Brett Bellmore]

That REALLY depends on the particular sort of cancer. Some cancers are so aggressive that they practically check you into a chemo ward the day after you're diagnosed. Others, yeah, you can wait a few months for a convenient time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If your superstition inclines you toward your position on this, F.D. Wolf, you picked the wrong fairy tale to (claim to) believe is true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you ill? Your retorts seem awfully weak lately.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It doesn't take much effort to refute the bigoted nonsense advanced by a white, male, un-American, right-wing blog.

[Bob from Ohio]

"story is probably bullshit anyway"

Sure, the clinic is mainly using her to gain sympathy for the clinic.

[Sarcastr0]

'This policy issue makes us look bad, so lets assume it's not true.'

Awesome governing.

This is what happens when you substitute slogans for policy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

We're going to be seeing so much of this: people twisting themselves into knots pretending the regime they put in place doesn't actually harm people the way it actually does and claim that the people who know best (doctors and patients) are all liars. It's so gross.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Conservatives like to quote Chesterton. But his comment about not tearing down a fence is apt here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really; We didn't stumble across this fence, and have to puzzle out why it's there. We know why this fence was built, we were there when they erected ignoring all the objections.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, you did not bother to question why it was built. After-the-fact culture war slogans are not a reason.

At the time, abortion was not something conservatives tended to be against.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was illegal everywhere. Somebody supported bans.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was legal in New York. And other places.

And in California. In 1971, Ronald Reagan had signed into law the most liberal abortion law in the country.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gotta break it to you, but while Republicans of a certain age have fond memories of Reagan, he wasn't the Platonic ideal conservative against whom all other conservatives must be compared. We actually ARE allowed to think he made mistakes.

[Sarcastr0]

He was, Brett. Ronaldo’s Maximus was worshipped.

Till Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the time? Per Wikipedia:

"Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally."

So, prior to Roe, you had 4 states with laws you liked, and 46 with laws conservatives would have liked. And you're telling me conservatives wouldn't have cared.

I'm telling you you're nuts. Conservatives weren't obsessing over abortion, sure. That's because they largely had it their way except for a handful of outlier states.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would you include in your "people who know best (doctors and patients)" thos doctors and patients who sought HCQ and Ivermectin and those who opposed vaccination because of pre-existing medical conditions?

[Jimmy the Dane]

The "judges" that voted to uphold Roe 30 years ago should be included in Profiles of Cowards. It took another generation and God only knows how many babies murdered until the wrong was finally righted.

The time for bold action is now. I hope that this generation of conservatives learned from the mistakes of the past. Press forward and never look back.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure Jimmy. You can press forward by being the person to tell cancer patients they can’t start chemo until after the birth. Be that guy. I know you want to.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a pretty flippant approach to human life. The only reason you could even get away with it is because a baby can't talk or be visually represented beyond imaging technology.

Imagine if someone just walked up to you and said, "Hey LawGuy we are going to need to murder you now. Yeah, you see, it is sort of inconvenient that you are here and it will just be easier for a few other people if we just fix that right now by offing you." For some reason I think you would have a problem with this....

[LawTalkingGuy]

, "Hey LawGuy we are going to need to murder you now. Yeah, you see, it is sort of inconvenient that you are here and it will just be easier for a few other people if we just fix that right now by offing you.”

This is literally how they are treating the life of the mother with cancer you twat.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Actually, no, it is taking into consideration the life and existence of a second, interdependent party. A person that cannot speak or advocate on their own behalf. And ending the life of that human is not always the answer when it comes to effectively treating something like cancer in the other person who needs to be considered.

Problem is here that you view the other human as being nothing more than medical waste which can be disposed of at the convenience of another. If that is the line you want to go with - by all means. Just don't be surprised when someone else learns your little rhetorical trick and starts telling people you or a class in which you belong are "sub-human" and don't deserve any type of moral consideration before being terminated.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Just don't be surprised when someone else learns your little rhetorical trick and starts telling people you or a class in which you belong are "sub-human" and don't deserve any type of moral consideration before being terminated.”

There it is. The not-so thinly veiled threat.

What are you giving yourself permission to do here Jimmy? Because it seems like you’re giving yourself a reason to classify others as sub-human and to justify any manner of violence or death on people you disagree with?

Does this include me? Will you kill me Jimmy because you’ve decided I’m sub-human since “liberal started it?” What would you do? Would you kill my family and friends too because they’re liberals who support abortion rights?

Again, I ask, what exactly are you giving yourself permission to do here? Do you have a list at home of sub-humans for termination?

I won’t ask a third time. Because we know the answer: you’re giving yourself permission to do something. And we both know what that something is. God willing the people you haven’t alienated in your life stop you before it’s too late, for your sake especially.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There it is. The not-so thinly veiled threat.

You are really an idiot aren't you? Lose an argument and the best you can do is this? In the words of Brandon "come on man!"

[LawTalkingGuy]

No I’m a person who takes you at your word. And you didn’t answer the questions because, again, we know the answers. Take care of yourself and make sure your life doesn’t become so desperate that you act on what you’ve already given yourself permission to do.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are the guy who is basically using the same logic as just about every madman who has committed genocide in recorded history. But, yeah, I'm the crazy one....

I'm sure as you are putting on your antifa black tonight and thinking that "social justice" or whatever other buzz word you call it justifies the violence you are about to commit tonight. I just hope you stick to property and not people.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m actually a pacifist so you can fuck off.

[F.D. Wolf]

The statute only requires the doctor's "good faith medical judgment". I say "seems" because I assume the doctor is in fact exercising good faith, though of course I cannot know if she is or not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"some sure footing for avoiding criminal prosecution"

The Montgomery County prosecutor is a Democrat. He's not bringing a criminal prosecution on the alleged facts.

In fact, no prosecutor would.

Declaratory judgment also exists to get court approval for the procedure. The clinic would rather use her to score political points though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"contains an exception to save the life of the pregnant person.”

This woman would qualify then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's my opinion: The child of a rape is innocent. Don't create a second victim.

[Sarcastr0]

Love the argument 'sure this is formally criminal, but have some faith in the prosecutor not to do anything untoward.'

Not a great solution, Bob.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The AGs office can bring cases. RC 109.07.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not even "formally criminal". There is an applicable exception so its not criminal at all.

[DaivdBehar]

Great comment, Rhoid. Well thought through. Thought provoking. Educational.

[Sarcastr0]

You're wrong about the applicability - it may be applicable but that's not clear at all.

Which makes relying on the good faith and fair dealing of the prosecutor a mighty thin reed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yost is not bringing one either.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm not wrong. You are just giving it an extremely limited reading to score "evil pro lifer" points.

[DaivdBehar]

Excellent point, Rhoid.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure, Jan. And when he’s not AG anymore? What then?

[DaivdBehar]

Hi Rhoid. Go to the zoo. Turn on MSNBC. The zoo has prettier faces for the most part.

[Bob from Ohio]

How long is her pregnancy going to last? He's there til January and then 4 years more after he wins re-election.

[David Nieporent]

No. The abortion doesn't save her life. The chemo (or other cancer treatment) does. She could have the chemo without first having an abortion.

[Seamus]

But Queenie believes that the sins of the father should literally be visited upon the sons.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What’s the statute of limitations on charging doctors? I also didn’t realize pregnant women with cancer is something that only happens once in a millennia. You wanted a bad system that is hurting people and risking lives. Gleefully own it like you gleefully own your desire to executive juveniles or simply kill terrorism suspects.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I walked through the text.

You are markedly insisting on an outcome being obvious and not engaging with the text at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's actually walk through the text.

"a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create."

Do you suppose having cancer that requires chemo complicates a pregnancy? My understanding is that's a given.

If the nature of the chemo is such that it would itself cause an abortion, (This differs depending on the chemo.) the abortion would occur while the woman was in a very debilitated state from the chemo, and thus be a serious risk to her life and/or health.

If the chemo is necessary to save the woman's life, and has to be done promptly, (This depends on the nature of the cancer.) then delaying the chemo until the pregnancy was over could also kill her.

Add this all up, and you satisfy the requirements of the law: A prompt abortion is medically necessary to save her life.

Now, the law puts this decision in the hands of "the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time", so it's his call, unless you can prove he's demanding an abortion just for the lutz. Which I would not suspect of an oncologist.

Bob is right: You're using a very strained reading of the law to arrive at an "evil pro-lifer" conclusion.