Yes, thinking about it is exactly what you should do. You hit precisely the question you need to answer when you asked "WHY?". The same can be asked of the voluntary poverty of the First World (and it's all voluntary, in the First World). Why would anyone choose that, and then complain about it how difficult it is? Tell me what you think causes such anomalous behaviour. Since women can easily avoid pregnancy, why would they go ahead and risk it if they don't like undergoing abortions?
Do you know how many eggs a woman produces every monthly cycle? To save you looking it up its a 1000 on average and each one has the potential of life but the odds against are 999 to one. Of course to develop it needs to be fertilised but the first stage is a simple a division of cells that have no resemblance to life as we know it. Most countries keep the right to an abortion to 24 weeks because within that time its simply preventing the continuing of the division of cells.
These are the people who almost elected a guy who was kicked off the bench twice for defying the law and was a pedofile to the US Senate.
That RvW was a bad decision, bad law has had volumes written about. At some point SCOTUS was going to have to face RvW. This will merely send it back to the states where perhaps it should have stayed in the first place where the PEOPLE actually have a say as to what will happen in their state.
What would that gain anyone? What is the necessity of re-submitting the unnecessary ERA that died a silent death.
Teeth are only a part of a human life. Hair is only a part of a human life. Even a zygote is a complete human being at that stage of a human being's life. Go study some biology.
Right in front of them with the right to take widely available medication that will be provide to her to prevent conception as she reports the rape to the police.
The purpose of these pieces of legislation is to get them challenged and work their way up to the SCOTUS for a final reckoning of RvW.
Most women had their baby. If they did not feel up to caring for their little darling, they gave it away to a mother who wanted the baby. Women did not rush about hunting for clothes hangers to self harm themselves. Even then doctors did abortions. It also depended on what state you lived in. Some Democrat leaning states did not give a plug nickel what the doctor did to women. God bless you mom because you could not care for my sister so you had an aunt adopt her. God bless you sister who moved for a few months to a family member who took charge of the baby and gave it a good home.
The baby is not born yet, the mothers expenses are covered by insurance or Medicaid. Please answer what I asked Haven't women been prosecuted for abuse of drugs and/or alcohol which have harmed or killed the baby?
Terribly wrong there isn't a provision for rape cases. That alone makes this a bad bill otherwise it would of been something to celebrate.
“Like the Ohio law that is already in effect” That law goes in effect July 10 so to my knowledge that 11 year old would be subject to existing laws
Yeah, I do. If you get raped, by a democrat family member, or a democrat stranger, get a plan b pill asap. Theres no reason to wait 36 weeks for an abortion. Thats just stupidity. No one needs more bill clintons.
Also some amount of that money from the father goes to the state to manage the account. I’m sure child support is profitable otherwise why would the state be involved?
That’s no reason to not give men the same ability to choose if they want to be a parent. The most/some states allow women to have abortions if their situations make it so they can’t deal with parenthood. Those states do that knowing that an unborn child may help society thru taxes but they still allow women that right? How much potential tax revenue are they losing when those fetuses are aborted? So why don’t man have the same ability to say they aren’t ready to be a parent? If it was all about money it’d be in states interest to not allow abortion....... can’t tax the dead.
Since a majority of women who want an abortion don't want their babies in the first place, it's not unreasonable to think that many of them will turn the newborn's over to the state leaving it in the hands of the state to raise the child, which translates into more tax dollars needed since the child will need to be fed, clothed, educated, medical & dental and supervision, etc. If I were the democrats, I wouldn't challenge the law and instead leave it as it is and watch Alabama's tax go through the ceiling especially as time goes on and the numbers of newborns swell to higher proportions.