NONE of that answers my question- You're given free-rein. You'll have the US House, Senate, and the President behind you.....create a law restricting abortion that a wealthy woman won't be able to circumvent. Go!
Cross-over from the other thread, Sam....but still a valid point. There is NO LAW that Steve nor you can come up with....that would stop a wealthy woman from being able to obtain an abortion. Even your "ultrasounds at airports" idea (you know, the one you NOW pretend you didn't support?).....would fail. Too many private airports with lots of private jets out there. BTW, on THIS thread, have you found a "pro-life" group or church YET....that wants to cut off aid to Israel? Bet you haven't.
Easy, she's not legally allowed to have an abortion in the United States, except under certain conditions income levels don't matter. We as America can not control what other countries do
I don't support airport ultrasounds, and I don't want to control women. The definition of control is this. Laws technically control people who have a desire to commit crimes(and who actually commit crimes), but they don't control people who know the difference between right and wrong. Laws against theft, for example, only control theives or people who want to steal. I don't want to control women. Saying that pro-lifers want to control women is like saying that people who think stealing is wrong (which is 99% of the population) want to control theives.
and what do you think laws against abortion do if they do not give the state "the power to influence ... the course of events" by your definition stopping someone from pursuing an abortion would be influencing the course of events they would normally take, ergo control, and you are right laws against theft do in fact attempt to control thieves, just as almost all other laws attempt to control .. the deference is those laws do have an effect, abortion laws do not and never have.