My mom told me that when she was in high school (1930s!) girls would suddenly take breaks in the middle of the school year to “go on vacation” to Switzerland.
Okay, this defies expectations:
With a couple hundred active members I don’t consider them much of a factor, with a bit of push back from both sides.
Cite.
The problem is that the law was based on privacy and not human life. And that’s why it got overturned.
It will be brought before the court again and this time they will have to argue directly on what constitutes human life.
Screw the women’s lives 'cause they aren’t “human” enough. Zygotes are totes more human and thus have more rights. And privacy? to make your own medical decisions with the expert help of your doctor? That assumes women should have any rights. Sheesh, so much stuff to explain. Extreme sarcasm.
Huh? I didn’t think it was controversial that women are living human beings. Privacy (and bodily autonomy, which is was being implied by “privacy”) is absolutely the right grounds.
When you have to let that homeless guy, who is unambiguously a living human being, camp out in your kitchen and eat from your pantry, we can talk about whether a women should have to support a fetus that might be a human being with her very flesh.
If you watched the news reports after RvW the most liberal of lawyers understood this was a legal house of cards. It’s not a privacy issue. It’s a human rights issue. So the legal question revolves around what defines human life and not privacy. When the law was struck down it opened up the flood gates for anti-abortion laws which won’t stand either for the same reason. This is GOING to end up before the Supreme Court again.
Well, that’s the important thing, then. Not all the women who are being denied bodily autonomy and access to health care at the expense of their well being, some dying or nearly dying and some being maimed to the point that they lose their ability to have children, all because the SCOTUS could not leave well enough alone because there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution.
If RvW was argued in good faith it would have stood the test of time. Most people understand that aborting a baby close to birth is wrong. It’s a viable human being. “Privacy” has nothing to do with it. What the court needs to rule on is what constitutes a human being.
I disagree they will ever do this.
It shouldn’t be controversial that baby’s are living human beings. Somewhere in the gestation period is a definition of what constitutes human life.
They have no choice.
Oh, they do. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
You don’t think there will be a challenge to anti-abortion laws?
I think there are a lot of different ways it could go. There may be challenges, but it may take a very long time to get back in front of the Supreme Court – at which time, the makeup of the Court could be different. There may also be different laws on the books.
Women are not going to go back to the days of coat-hanger abortions.
Is there a fallacy for thinking that the way you think is morally and ethically absolute, thus if anybody comes to a different conclusion it is obvious that they must be wrong?
You are “most people” right? How close to birth is too close, in your opinion?
Most people would be wrong. Abortions done late in a pregnancy are always life threatening to the mother who, to me anyway, is a human being, or there is something very wrong with the fetus, or most likely a combination of both.
The hand wringing about “late term abortions” is just another way to make abortion icky. Privacy, bodily autonomy, may not be listed rights, but they loom large in the unenumerated rights.
Their behavior. Their actions simply make no sense in any other context.