LOL! Specifically how did I "conflate Ginsburg's critique of Roe and her view of abortion rights"? I quoted her directly. “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” The University of Chicago The Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit, Meredith Heagney, May 15, 2013. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
Many women don't know they are pregnant that early. And, you're ignoring the health issues and decisions that come AFTER that period, all the way to birth.
Those are critiques of the Rue v Wade decision. They are not statements concerning her view of abortion.
Gee, and yet a more restrictive standard works just fine in most of Europe and all of France. It appears you have an absolutist position and I doubt there is much that can be said to change your mind. I value diversity of opinion, yours included.
Canada has fewer abortions per thousand pregnancies than we do. And, they accomplish that with NO LAWS on abortion. In fact, their health care system PAYS for abortions. In the USA, the right wing wants control over women's healthcare. If the religious right that drives draconian abortion law in the US was actually interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would THINK for a few moments. The thing is, the intolerable aspect IS the draconian laws. If other methods were approached, agreement could be reached. But, no. The Republican party is interested in the issue, NOT in reducing abortions.
Dobbs will be evaluated on the Rational Basis Standard and I expect that it will be determined by the Court to be perfectly constitutional regulation by the citizen's legislature.
The politically active right wing Catholics on the court absolutely CAN do whatever the hell they want to do. They don't have to abide by stare decisis or ANY other standard of jurisprudence.
They don't write the regulations, our elected legislators do. Dobbs looks to me to be perfectly constitutional regulation, and as such, I expect it to breeze through the Court's rational basis review. On what basis would you claim that Dobbs is unconstitutional?
That is monumentally irrelevant. First of all, you can not stop a 16yo from doing what she wants. We don't have police to track each woman. Second of all, the right wing doesn't give a crap about rape and incest, so you're headed into waters where you have nothing.
It's a simple question: You claim that bodies cannot be legitimately regulated and then refuse to answer whether people should be free to sex traffic themselves?
This thread is about abortion. And, I'd very much like you to NOT claim I said stuff that I didn't say. OK?
This is abort abortion. And, NO law proposed by Republicans has considered the crimes of rape and incest, or what they do to women's lives.
My post is perfectly proper and follows your points. You claimed the following: So, I asked you a few questions to determine if you accept the authority of the State to impose any limits on our bodies. I have repeatedly recognised the authority of the elected Legislatures to regulate us provided those regulations survive the rational basis test. Another question you declined to answer is "on what basis do you consider Dobbs to be unconstitutional?"
Every state has legislation concerning age of consent. And, THIS topic is about abortion, NOT age of consent.
You claimed the State has no right to regulate a person's body. Now you just admitted that State can legitimately legislate encroachments on bodily autonomy. You've come very far, very quickly. Congrats. Similarly, Dobbs is legitimate legislation that strikes a sensible balance between the mother's right to autonomy and the child's right to be born.
You never answered the question : WHY do opponents of abortion want it banned? THIS is from YOUR post, why can't you address it? ""many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022."" ....which is completely illogical. Why "some" circumstances if it's "murder"? IF you do not want to answer those 'awkward " questions then don't post things pertaining to them
Again, only 8% want a total ban on abortion. Why do you dismiss your oppositions moderate tolerant pro-choice as "illogical"? How does that kind of extremism help women?
That is absolute nonsense. You're comparing totally unrelated issues. Or, are you saying there is an age after which a woman is free to have an abortion?
