And when combined with the 14th, that is a sure thing.The 4th also covers 'security of the person', bodily autonomy, and that's what I was referring to in my post and what the McFail v Shimp decision is about.
I'm not the one being delusional about it.
It is both legal and a right.
I knew you were being disingenuous.I did not include the word "a" in my post before the word "right" as you did.
Entirely different meaning.
Irrelevant. My statement is accurate. Whether one thinks abortion itself is right or wrong is subjective.I did not include the word "a" in my post before the word "right" as you did.
Entirely different meaning.
Irrelevant. My statement is accurate. Whether one thinks abortion itself is right or wrong is subjective.
Probably due to emotionally based reasons. Those reasons might be referred to as a "state interest." I have not heard anyone put forth a rational reason to pass laws against abortion.But it does raise the question...if it's not wrong, why are there laws against it?
In addition to my previous statement, possibly due to political and/or popular appeal.How, under the Const., are they allowing states to deny women a safer medical procedure?
There are those that want it banned and who advocate for it. Or at least for severe restrictions.And if it is wrong, why isnt it banned?
Probably due to emotionally based reasons. Those reasons might be referred to as a "state interest." I have not heard anyone put forth a rational reason to pass laws against abortion.
In addition to my previous statement, possibly due to political and/or popular appeal.
There are those that want it banned and who advocate for it. Or at least for severe restrictions.
I knew you were being disingenuous.
Irrelevant. My statement is accurate. Whether one thinks abortion itself is right or wrong is subjective.
Oh, the irony.What you know and what is factual seem to be separated by a wide distance.
As have I. No one can seem to elaborate or specify what is "interest" actually is.I have yet to have anyone tell me, legitimately, what the 'state's interest' is in the unborn.
[with a hint of sarcasm] Sanctimony maybe?Certainly I cant think of anything that over rides the violation of several of women's Const rights which...if we are protected by the Const for 2/3 of the pregnancy...how are we still not protected in the last third? What "state's interest" supersedes that?
Oh, the irony.
What the **** is wrong with Anti-Abortion assholese?
LOL That is actually really funny. Thanks...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?