They are all people, in different stages of development. I know judges, not even Supreme Court justices, can make law.
They haven't said that there should be no limits on abortion. They have repeatedly said they support Roe v. Wade.
they asked jen pskaki if they supported abortion during all points of pregnancy and she wanted no limits placed on it, meaning she favors abortion the minute before birth
ok fine lets say all our sources lie. can you explain the biden and mainstream dem party position on how abortion should be limited? at what point do they want to violate the right to birthing people's own body? third trimester? never?
And dumb shit, frantic maniacs are making more out of this than there is. MOST, ALL of the lunatics losing their minds on this don't even know what the ruling is about!!! It's NOT overturning Roe v Wade, and that is why there is ABSOLUTELY ... NO ... CONFLICT with the ruling!! Dobbs vs JWHO is about the MS law that bans "most" abortions after 15 weeks and is based on assumption of viability. As such it does NOT overturn Roe v Wade, nor does it limit choices for women. That is all just a bunch of brain dead, lunatic, leftist propaganda. Roe v Wade simply stated that the STATE could not ban ALL abortions, and that women retained the right to make that choice. Within the ruling was the "collapse clause", wherein it was discussed that the defense could not at the time define the point of viability, and as such, "conception" was not a valid concept to make the argument of Right to Life under the 14th Amendment. However, Roe v Wade did NOT settle that issue, other than to say "conception" is not the start of viability. As the law states, viability is set at 15 weeks. At this point, all organs are developed, the fetus is producing urine, it can suck its thumb, and a whole lot of other things. The "heartbeat" is not merely cardiac cells beating together anymore, but in fact is a heart pumping blood throughout the system. In a mere 5 weeks, the baby "could" be born and survive with modern medical technology. But even here, as stated, the law still permits abortions in circumstances, on a case by case basis. There has to come a time when viability is established. A full term birth can not serve as that time point, as viable premature births happen all the time. As such, there is a point where it is no longer terminating a pregnancy, but killing another human being.
Yes the do and their proposed new law states it specifically. “for any reason up until birth’ read it and weep asshole https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...den-endorsed-radical-abortion-law/9366011002/
You're wrong, dipshit. The proposed law does NOT say that. Your linked author is doing a dishonest hack job, and it's obvious you took her word for what the law says WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING IT, asshole. The law would not change Roe v. Wade, wherein states have the power to restrict abortions in the third trimester. The purpose of the legislation is to make access to legal abortions secure, safe, and without hassle, and to protect medical professionals. In fact, your linked text specifically states that "A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements: (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure." The law is clearly constructed within the requirements of Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a state's right to prohibit abortions after viability. So, in a nutshell, your author is lying, and you'll be lying, too, when you double down on that bullshit.
