To some, freedom to oppress others is the only freedom there is.
Or whether or not you are allowed to reproduce. The same reasoning that allows the state to force an unwanted pregnancy to come to term can also be used to terminate a wanted one. Or to sterilize those deemed unfit to reproduce by the state.
I wonder if pro-lifers will be as gung-ho about giving up their bodily autonomy to the state when they are being castrated by it.
But the leopards will never eat their faces, amirite?
No, they never hurt the wrong people.
The face-eating distracts them from the grift.
They punted the decision to the states so they could have clean hands.
Reminds me of a guy…think his name was Pilate…Pontius Pilate…something to do with washing hands…
No, they returned the decision to the States, and the People, where it belongs under the Constitution.
…leaving the right of bodily autonomy (for women, at least) subject to majority vote. In a large number of states, these voters want to punish women for having sex outside the covenant of the patriarchy.
Misogyny is a lot more fun as a team sport.
States’ rights is an outdated concept. The Civil War solved that question once and for all. I believe our Pledge of Allegiance has always held that America is “one nation…indivisible” – or does the states’ rights crowd not know the Pledge. Enough of them have tried to shove it down our throats for the past fifty years. (Then again, a lot of them have tried to shove the Bible down the same way, and half of them would confuse Joseph and Joshua.) Montana did not put men on the moon. Wisconsin did not dig the Panama Canal. Florida did not eradicate smallpox. Your passport does not say “Citizen of Arkansas.”
Like I said, SCOTUS passed the buck.
This seems to be saying that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t actually exist. Because if the Supreme Court won’t defend that right by declaring unconstitutional any state legislation that infringes it, then in practice the “People” don’t actually have that right.
I don’t see how you reconcile that position with the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly asserts that people do have rights beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
(I also don’t see how you get around the blatant contradiction between, say, asserting that the Constitution doesn’t provide a right to privacy, or a right to an abortion, and asserting that the Constitution does provide a right to, say, semiautomatic firearm ownership or to concealed carry of a firearm, neither of which are mentioned in the document.)
We, the People, don’t want abortion on demand at 39 weeks.
How often does that actually happen? I’d bet there are a greater number of mass shootings then there are (medically non-vital) abortions at 39 weeks.
You, a person, don’t want the extremely rare 39th week abortion to be legal.
Where does a right to abortion come from then? Was it an emanation, a penumbra, or what?
In any case, “substantive due process” is a legal fiction, or as Justice Thomas said, “an oxymoron that lacks any basis in the Constitution”.
Sounds like a decision for a medical ethics review board, not we the uneducated People
Would you be fine if we disallowed abortion, except for life-or-death medical emergency, after 38 weeks?
Not just me; polls show that only 19% support abortion in the third trimester, which means a vast majority do not, and only 34% in the second, still a 2/3 majority against.
You said 39 weeks is out of the question.
What about 38 weeks?
No, I wouldn’t.
What about 37 weeks?
Let us jump past the “39 week on-demand abortion” boogeyman you like to parade around and get straight to the point- What is your actual cut-off point when it comes to abortions?