By supplying all pregnant women with the physical and emotional support to get an abortion in this country, or a foreign country. Women who stand up for this most basic right of self-determination (and the men who support them) have the means, will and intention of making sure women have timely abortion services available to them in another state or even out of the country.
Yes, it does appear that way today, no doubt. From an academic perspective, I understand the point that Roe was argued and decided wrongly. That, because its reasoning was that the right to abortion was found by way of due process clause. The end result was good, but technically it was wrong. Like the Griswold case, it should have recognized the spirit and letter of the Ninth.
Sure. But, Roe was in effect for decades, and there was no reason to reverse the court decision in this case. The fact that it was reversed on technical grounds is a clear indication of judicial activism. We have stare decisis for sound reasons. Ending KEY law on the basis of politics is exactly what we have NEVER wanted our court to be doing. Several of these justices were asked during confirmation whether they looked to end Roe. They indicated that their belief was that the issue was settled. This court is surrendering bits of its legitimacy every once in a while. And, the Roe ruling is definitely one of those cases.
It's VERY simple: you are saying that somewhere out there is a list of rights, but these rights are not actually listed in the Constitution. There is no right to abortion. Simple!
The constitution does not claim to itemize all rights supported by the constitution. For more than 100 years, the USSC has stated that the principles of freedom laid down in the constitution cover issues of personal bodily autonomy.
And yet you have not demonstrated your amazing grasp of the English language by even ATTEMPTING to explain how the text of the Constitution includes a right to abortion! Well done!
Personal bodily autonomy, stated in any manner you wish, absolutely does include abortion rights, as that is a treatment of the woman's person.
No, I'm saying that's the definition of personal bodily autonomy. You don't have personal bodily autonomy if government is denying access to care.
In the old days, most pregnancies would be considered what these days is called "unplanned". The difference? The majority of these pregnancies took place within a marriage, or at least a relationship that was considering the possibility of marriage. Everyone knew that if two people were living together, like married people do, then it was only natural for children to come into that relationship. Everyone just assumed that would happen and expected it and considered it to be normal. (post quoted from another thread, but chris155au was the first person to quote you from that other thread here, resulting in my confusion)
History also included deaths from abortions outside of professional health care. I'm not sure what your point is here, but things DID improve from that. Now, we are going in the opposite direction, with once again having abortions denied by government, even when they include known serious healthcare risks.
Mostly only in NYC, Chicago, and Hollywood circles, beginning in the early 1920s. (and of course prostitutes in the Wild West in the 1860s) Key word: LIFESTYLE
Are you suggesting that the government should get to use "lifestyle" as an excuse for denying healthcare to a pregnant woman? Do you have some reference in our constitution that would suggest government gets to rule on lifestyle?
Our constitution is about persons and citizens. A fetus is neither, and it is VERY DEFINITELY part of the woman's body.
You can hold your own beliefs. I have no problem with that. BUT, you can't use the government to enforce you beliefs on others. Beliefs just aren't enough for that.
I have no problem if a woman wants to hold her beliefs. Just so long as it doesn't have a direct impact on someone else's life. You say "you can't use the government to enforce your beliefs on others", but that is exactly what the pro-choice crowd has been trying to do! Either in countless other areas, or when it comes to trying to get the federal government to impose their will on state governments over the abortion issue. The woman, indeed, is forcing her beliefs onto her unborn fetus. Tell me, would you be in favor of removing all laws that criminalize someone trying to trick the woman out of the abortion? I didn't think so. Hypocrite. Look how far one state went to cover up the truth, passing a law! California passed a law to cover up for Planned Parenthood I think people like you clearly have some double standards when it comes to which "rights" you believe people should have, and when it's okay for government to impose their beliefs on others.
