Thank you for your opinion, but...
lol
on what basis do abortion laws exist, anywhere? one example:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0300-0399/0390/Sections/0390.0111.html
TERMINATION IN THIRD TRIMESTER; WHEN ALLOWED.—No termination of pregnancy shall be performed on any human being in the third trimester of pregnancy unless one of the following conditions is met:
these are the laws to which scotus ruling will apply, in fact numerous states have "trigger laws" that will rapidly go into effect contingent on scotus ruling similarly to leaked documents. i don't think what is written into law is opinion, but rather what the law is/should be and the basis for that is the topic of the thread.
also, i will ask you something:
why do you think anybody who is against abortion is against it? are you in favor of post-birth abortion? if not, perhaps you can explain to us why you believe post-birth abortions are wrong?
I would hate to think that one of the standard questions asked by the customs agents of female drivers/passengers might be if they're pregnant and if so, are they crossing the border to obtain an abortion.
this isn't even legal between us states, let alone crossing country borders. us is no more capable of legally pursuing women who cross borders to do this than they could prosecute citizens who go to netherlands or other foreign countries and do drugs there.
you should probably be more worried about them stealing cash in the us, since they do that routinely at huge scales.
"Wokeism." Yes, it's a fabrication, but that doesn't mean politicians can't spin it into something that gets insanely out of control.
wokeism is real, functions something like one of the worst religions in world history (not literally the worst, but pretty bad), and is a major detriment to society generally.
it also isn't meaningfully related to abortion, and its usage should therefore be rejected in context of abortion discussion.
Yes they are, if you storm the Supreme Court.
i think this was made in jest, but i would like to point out that insofar as people should be protesting/getting angry/acting at all, it should be pressuring state legislatures. that is where influencing policy has a chance of being useful, if the state in question has a different policy than they believe is right.
You an attorney? You understand Roe used previous rulings on OTC contraceptive purchasing, allowing biracial marriage, etc. to justify Roe.
actually roe seems to have used an extremely questionable/loose connection to "privacy rights" while ducking the fundamental question of what is occurring during an abortion at a given time. it is not difficult to find attorneys that point this out, if you don't want to hear it from people here.
One of the first replies I see (I don't use twitter) is that this logically puts forced vasectomies on the table.
care to explain how this logically follows?