an erroneous legal standard. Instead, Hiedeman argues that “[t]he rationale for [abortion] statutes— the woman’s health and safety — applies with no less force where the woman rather than another person performs the abortion.” Thus, he argues that the U.S. District Court erred in determining that McCormack was likely to succeed on the merits. We disagree. a. History of Abortion Statutes. Historically, laws regulating abortion have sought to further the state’s interest in protecting the health and welfare of pregnant women, who alone bear the burden and risks of pregnancies. With this interest in mind, abortion statutes were first enacted to protect pregnant females from third parties providing dangerous abortions. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 151, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800, 806
recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child recognizing that the purpose of abortion laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the states interest in protecting the womans health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus recognizing and protecting the interest of municipality in preserving nonpartisan police force and appearance thereof holding that laws with the purpose of placing an obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion are invalid holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents