Then make up your mind. When I accused you of having that position you claimed it was a joke.
Regardless, you're still wrong. Even under Roe a fetal right to life can be established in the third trimester and has in over 40 states. You can ignore these laws if you like, but they still exist.
Roe does not use the term "fetal right to life". This is something you have made up. Roe says the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health and potential life of the fetus. This is about the 4th time you have been told this. Why do you keep insisting that states can confer "right to life" or "personhood"on a fetus. State laws cannot ignore the US Code.And they have not. No state has established a right to life law. If you think they have please give some links and quote the language used. I've looked and cannot find any state that has done so.
It doesn't matter if I support choice or not. The fact is that the court lacks the authority to impose its opinion on choice on all 50 states.
This was a class action question: had the lower court reached a valid decision about Roe's and other women's right to sue the state of Texas to make them stop prohibiting all women from getting an abortion? The lower court had said that the law banning abortion except for the health of the mother was vague and infringed on Roe's and all other women's 9th and 14th Amendments. The state disagreed with with lower courts decision and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was being asked whether the lower court had made the correct decision.
("A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. ...... A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe ..... had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and over-broadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. .... Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe....")
The SC was asked for declaratory relief: Declaratory relief refers to a court's judgment stating the rights of parties without ordering any specific action or listing awards for damages. When a party is requesting a declaratory judgment, the party is seeking an official declaration regarding the status of the controversy in issue. The SC was not asked for injunctive relief which would have been a declarations by the SC that the Texas law was wrong and had to be changed or eliminated.
It looks like to me what the SC decision did was to say the lower court's decision that all women's 9th and 14th Amendment rights had been infringed upon or denied and was unconstitutional. That doesn't sound like making law that sounds like what the SC was asked to do by the Constitution.
The Constitution says:"Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Overturning Roe really has almost nothing to do with abortion. It is the beginning salvo in an effort to deny the SC right to make decisions against states and push the country into a federal system rather than a united state. Overturning Roe reinforces the right of each state to make all it's own laws without central government interference. The central government is maintained for military defense only and has no jurisdiction over any state laws. It is not what the founding father envisioned for the United States of America when they wrote the Constitution.
I am not fat.
I'm not fat. 
