OMG Thomas again on criminal child neglect like a broken record.

P: we are not denying state has interest in a kid born to a cocaine-using mother.

Gorsuch: if we reject the viability line, is there any other intelligible principle we could use to deal with 10, 12, 8, 6 week bans?

P: nothing more principled than viability.

Kav: you make a very forceful argument but the other side says there are two interests - fetal life, too. You say Casey accommodates both interest of women and fetus, but you can't accommodate both. 'You have to pick. One interest has to prevail over the other.'

Kav: why not let the people decide how to accommodate the two interests? Different answers in MS and NY, CA and AL - and that's ok, right?

P: No. This is a fundamental right of women, so it's not up to state legislatures.

Barrett returns to Kagan's reliance question.

P: safe-haven laws overlook consequences of giving up a child for adoption and there's nothing new here - Roe and Casey took account of that fact.

P: must leave abortion up to women's decision.

Stewart rebuttal time.

S: safe haven laws are now ubiquitous and relieve the huge parenting burden. Allow women to choose how many children to have.

S: we want the Court to be 'scrupulously neutral', just as Kavanaugh said. Interests for everyone involved. Let the states decide.

Roe is egregiously wrong and will continue to 'take innumerable human lives' unless the Court overrules it.

HEARING IS DONE.

Quick impression: bleak future for abortion rights.

I count:
- 6 justices to uphold the 15-week ban
- at least 4 justices to overrule Roe/Casey

Roberts wants to keep Roe/Casey and erase the viability line — but he cannot forge a majority with just three liberals.