Agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision on abortion and overturning Roe v Wade?
www.emilypostnews.com
The Supreme Court just ruled that: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives” Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion: “Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single State.”
Do you agree or disagree with this ruling? What do you think will happen now?
Abortion (Murder of Innocent Babies in an Evil Mother's Womb) has NEVER been a Constitutional Right. The Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision was UNCONSTITUTIONAL the day it was signed and published.
I agree it is a matter to be left to the individual states. It seems that the anti-abortion lobby asked for this fight. And now that got back a giant #$&t sandwich and don't like the taste.
Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022Liked by Emily Miller
The ruling is not a surprise; this Court has issued two very consistent rulings in two days.
It is the first Supreme Court in my lifetime where the majority isn't reading our Constitution through Progressive goggles. It has rediscovered the actual words of a Right that was written down in the 2nd Amendment, and tossed the 'Right' that was invented by another Supreme Court back in the '70s when Congress failed to pass a national abortion rights law.
Tomorrow, Congress could pass a national law. And we probably should not leave it up to individual states. Young women do not have the freedom to choose what state they were born into.
Personally, I feel the same way about both issues - the [Constitutional, upper case] Right to keep and bear arms and the [Statutory, lower case ] right to an abortion (within a limited, humane time-frame).
I do hope -like any sane person- that both these powerful rights are exercised by American citizens with great caution - and hopefully infrequently. I no more want anyone shot than I want a fetus aborted. But I feel that both of these rights are necessary in a 'free' country.
Unfortunately this will be used by Lefties to riot. When the Right loses, which seems to be all of the time, and we complain, which seems to happen rarely, we are labeled bigots and racists. We're told we are trying to control the opposition. When the Left loses, which is very rare these days, they tell the regular people out there, who aren't always very left of center, to riot because "the Man is keeping you down." The Lefties have nothing real to say about the success of our economy, so this is what they do instead - riot. It's coming on this one, and organized.
I personally believe the heartbeat bill was an excellent compromise.
Woman that have multiple abortions, perhaps counseling? Not Government Counseling, real counseling.
Late term abortion, and in some states pushing for 30 days after giving birth, it’s ok to murder your baby, that is barbaric and horrific. No amount of PC misnomers changes Murder to A Right.
We all know that baby body parts are a huge industry, this has never been about Woman’s rights. Men competing in woman’s sports, blows all that faux care about rights away.
Greed is a huge drive, laced with emotionalism and a well funded Soros etc NGO.
I think as a whole, our nation supports a limited right to abortion. The original Roe probably was the ideal compromise. Roe as modified by Casey opened the path for states to enact tighter and tighter restrictions down to the Texas bill which has now tipped the scales to turn the issue over to states to debate and decide. I'd prefer a situation where abortion isn't necessary, but the reality is that life is not always black and white. Again, as a nation, we appear comfortable with ending pregnancies early in some circumstances, which ends the life of unborn children. Similarly, we are equally comfortable with widespread access to firearms, which makes death by firearms a significant cause of death. Both situations come with consequences to life that our nation has chosen to accept.
I think it's an appropriate decision. It's being said over and over, but it's true: the Court in '73 played a game of Twister with the Constitution in order to come up with a "right" that didn't exist.
In doing so, they took away the right of the people to weigh in on whether or not they wanted to permit this de facto genocide in their midst. After all, a civilized people must be one that protects those who are unable to protect themselves, and who is less-able than an unborn child? And I reject the premise that abortion is a "private matter" and is no one else's business. Do we permit a murderer of any living person to claim it's a private matter? Of course not. No matter how much the pro-abortion lobby wishes to deny it, an unborn child is a human person and should be accorded, at a bare minimum, the right to live. Indeed, since many other rights are not accrued until adulthood, that right to life itself is the most basic of rights.
I noticed something the other day while doing some reading on this topic - the black population of the US is 12.4%. Since the largest number of abortions are among black women, abortion has effectively kept that group from growing at the rate that they would otherwise. And if my math is correct, the impact of abortion on numbers of blacks vs. whites is considerably greater. Looks to me that Margaret Sanger's "work" has continued well after her passing.
I believe the court did the correct thing. The abortion issue now returns to the states, where it rightly belongs. Politically, after an initial period of outrage, this should lower the temperature of the abortion debate. It will be one less thing dividing the country on a national scale. I truly doubt that the Congress will ever pass a bill legalizing abortion. As science continues to reveal the sacred nature of what occurs in the womb, the shouts of anger will be reduced to whimpers of shame. I pray that the nation will now become TRULY pro life and lovingly help all who are struggling with unplanned pregnancies, thoughts of suicide, and end of life pain and medical issues. Today’s ruling was the result of millions of answered prayers. Our nation needs to be worthy of the gift we have received.
100% correct ruling. Now the legislative branch of the US government should do their jobs and actually create a bill and pass it that determines when life begins. At that point the unborn will be protected by the 14th amendment. This should wait until after the midterms and hopefully a 2/3 majority of both houses will be able to override a presidential veto.
For the last 50-odd years, abortion at the state level has been a political version of "Name That Tune", never a really serious effort at anything other than a fundraising meme, with each state vying with the other to be the most or least restrictive. It will be really interesting now, because some real thought will need to be put into each state's laws. This is very similar to the Republican Obamacare fight that I (and many others) wanted to see repealed, but when the stars really aligned in a way to make repeal possible, the politicians said "yea, sorry. couldn't really do it".
The leftists and their Marxist threatmongering have terrified some companies and have forced other wokeist companies to go all in. It’s been a battle for women to get maternity leave from some companies but now the companies are throwing money at, uhhhh, “birthing people” to kill their babies. This country has gotten so bassackward - in a very bad way - that the social polizaration has now infected the corporate world. Will it come to list-checking for people to spend their money on the politically correct companies that match their ideologies and boycott others? That’s already happening to some extent but the crazies will keep up their attacks on the conservative folks and companies. But, as you mention, the shareholders will ultimately be the arbiters.
Admittedly, I’m one of them since I own stock in one of those woke companies and totally disagree with spending money to fund infanticide. Companies will justify it as “health care” for the aborters. Holding the stock amounts to dancing with the devil because its real money that is income.
I think the issue would need to be so divisive and expensive for the companies that the ideology/policy becomes a significant share liability which would take a shareholder initiative to get voted on at a shareholder meeting.
Since the left wing media control everything, they’ll fawn over the company practice and drown out dissenting opinions. The pro-life customers will need to unite and be vocal about boycotts and liquidating shares in sufficient quantity that the stock princes decline and cause stock-holder pain. The hissy-fits will last until the election and the boycotters will need to find and be satisfied with alternatives to the companies and their products. It’s becoming a tough call, for sure
exactly! this is one of the reasons that before any decision is taken medical and other counseling is such a serious part of the process (all crammed in that tiny bit of time there is). TQ so much for making this the subject of your article, for it is such a fundamental issue and deserves great care in addressing it. GB
Crime is out of hand, and the Dems are only doing things to make it worse. Our local theater has just come back from the COVID slump and there's all kinds of crime there now. It's disgusting.
I agree with the decision, it’s murder plain and simple, but I also agree that if the mothers life is in danger then it should be done. But you know as well as I do that this isn’t going to stop anyone from getting one.
I don’t know enough about the decision except to say given my remedial understanding of the wisdom of the founding fathers, it seems like right to life belongs with the states.
One concern I have is a Justice Kavanaugh & Coney Barret both expressed support for precedence and said they consider Roe settled law.
I'm going to take the legalistic approach and agree in part and disagree in part.
I agree that Roe v Wade was an horrible judicial error and its foundation was entirely devoid of any actual Constitutional reasoning.
However, I think Justice Alito might have overlooked a key concession of Roe that is central to much of the abortion debate.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, "
Blackmun concluded that, within the law, the unborn child is NOT established as a full person--but at the same time admitted that if personhood were to be established, all claims to a right of abortion would be immediately and irrevocably vacated.
Where this is relevant in the Mississippi case comes from one of the definitions embedded in the statute:
"(g) “Human being” means an individual member of the species Homo sapiens, from and after the point of conception."
In other words, the Mississippi statute declares outright the very personhood that Blackmun said was not extant in US law, declined to find for the unborn within Constitutional law, but conceded that, were it ever to be established, would completely derail any notion of a right to an abortion.
Nor is the Mississippi statute the isolated case of this that some might think. We forget that Roe v Wade was decided before the era of DNA evidence--which evidence has long been taken to be tantamount to the establishment of identity. So strong is this linkage between DNA evidence and identity that in 2010 the California Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a "John Doe" arrest warrant where the suspect's name was unknown but there was a DNA profile establishing with particularity the target of the arrest warrant.
As a matter of basic biology, in the moment of conception a unique DNA profile is created. The fetus does not have the DNA profile of the mother nor of the father, but rather shares elements of both.
Thus there is a corpus of law that backs the Mississippi statute's declaration of personhood for the unborn, which personhood vacates all claim of right to abortion even by Roe v Wade's own terms.
I think Alito missed a good opportunity to acknowledge the full ramifications of where the law has gone on the subject of DNA and identity: if DNA establishes personhood for the purpose of an arrest warrant it establishes personhood from the moment of conception. With personhood attached to the fetus all debate over abortion ends, for it becomes a clear case of homicide at that point.
My ex wife twice tried to abort our child and it was a massive fight between us, I was 100% against it. She was twice denied abortions, because of her health. When we divorced, I got the kid (after a tough fight against a Judge who thought children always belong to the mother) Her mother moved to the mid-West so she was minimally involved in raising her. I raised her to be a wonderful lady and a trauma nurse.
The day she was born, to this day is the happiest day of my life. Her birth is the best thing to ever happen to me. Being a Dad and able to raise her was also a blessing, although there were trying times, especially between the ages of 11 and 16, I would do it all over again.
Agree - but with limited exceptions, and it should be relegated to the states to decide. And the first thing Queen Nancy screeched this morning was "...overturned a Constitutional right..." No, Queenie, the Constitutional right was the one acknowledged yesterday.
Sorry, don't mean to hijack this post as a "free" subscriber. But since you've covered COVID and the vaccines extensively, here is something that would make a very useful news story if you're inclined.
The "safer" Novavax vaccine, due to be available any day now, has some alarming clinical trial results, including but not limited to reproductive issues:
The vaccine group had almost DOUBLE the incidence rate of neoplasms as the placebo group (0.95 vaccine vs. 0.51 placebo).
Ditto for immune system disorders (1.05 vaccine vs. 0.51 placebo).
Reproductive system and breast disorders were also worrisomely elevated (2.00 vaccine vs. 1.25 placebo). That one is notably concerning because the table shows the increase is concentrated in the younger age group. Alarmingly, the FDA briefing document ( https://www.fda.gov/media/158912/download - Page 67) shows 25 miscarriages compared to 41 live births.
Totally agree. Conservative/red states will implement restrictions that protect the child except under nasty circumstances or the health of the mother. Blue/leftist states will spend taxpayer money attracting women, paying for transportation and the procedure for those who want to kill the baby. Some up to the time of birth I’d bet.
I think the left and the right in this country have been moving further apart for decades (personally, I think it's mainly the left moving MUCH further left, but that's another conversation - clearly, we're very divided as a nation). And I think this is a big step in the right direction that needs to happen on a broader scale, not just regarding abortion. I think the only way this country can continue to exist without heading toward some sort of secession-like situation is for more power to be returned from the federal government to the states, and for people to be able to live where it suits them best. I know that won't solve everything because the division goes beyond just state-by-state, but also urban vs. rural areas within many states, but having the federal government force one-size-fits-all solutions on everyone is unsustainable.
I really think that abortion is going to become far less important at the federal level. There are too many other things people are concerned with in their everyday lives, and a large portion people for whom this is a top issue probably already live in a state that reflects that, or soon will.
The irony of this ruling vs mandatory covid vaccination. "my body my choice" should go both ways but it doesn't. Many people were told to "move to another state" or "it's your choice to lose your job" or "you're a selfish killer."
I'm not clear the impact of this ruling, the way it's being made out to be. Prior to this ruling the federal govt permitted abortion, but some states such as CA was already pro-abortion. Now that the ruling was overturned, many blue states will still be pro-abortion. CA will even use state funds to fly people in to have an abortion. I'm not clear how this ruling really changes anything for a women who wants to get an abortion.
Are some red states completely illegalizing abortion or is it still permitted up to the first 3 months? While there may be some instances where a woman does not know if they're actually pregnant at the 3 months mark, in most instances and in the rare case of rape, wouldn't most woman know if they want to keep the baby or not in the first 3 months?
Agree. It is a matter for the states and the people. It was a horrible law.
Abortion (Murder of Innocent Babies in an Evil Mother's Womb) has NEVER been a Constitutional Right. The Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision was UNCONSTITUTIONAL the day it was signed and published.
I agree it is a matter to be left to the individual states. It seems that the anti-abortion lobby asked for this fight. And now that got back a giant #$&t sandwich and don't like the taste.
The ruling is not a surprise; this Court has issued two very consistent rulings in two days.
It is the first Supreme Court in my lifetime where the majority isn't reading our Constitution through Progressive goggles. It has rediscovered the actual words of a Right that was written down in the 2nd Amendment, and tossed the 'Right' that was invented by another Supreme Court back in the '70s when Congress failed to pass a national abortion rights law.
Tomorrow, Congress could pass a national law. And we probably should not leave it up to individual states. Young women do not have the freedom to choose what state they were born into.
Personally, I feel the same way about both issues - the [Constitutional, upper case] Right to keep and bear arms and the [Statutory, lower case ] right to an abortion (within a limited, humane time-frame).
I do hope -like any sane person- that both these powerful rights are exercised by American citizens with great caution - and hopefully infrequently. I no more want anyone shot than I want a fetus aborted. But I feel that both of these rights are necessary in a 'free' country.
Unfortunately this will be used by Lefties to riot. When the Right loses, which seems to be all of the time, and we complain, which seems to happen rarely, we are labeled bigots and racists. We're told we are trying to control the opposition. When the Left loses, which is very rare these days, they tell the regular people out there, who aren't always very left of center, to riot because "the Man is keeping you down." The Lefties have nothing real to say about the success of our economy, so this is what they do instead - riot. It's coming on this one, and organized.
I personally believe the heartbeat bill was an excellent compromise.
Woman that have multiple abortions, perhaps counseling? Not Government Counseling, real counseling.
Late term abortion, and in some states pushing for 30 days after giving birth, it’s ok to murder your baby, that is barbaric and horrific. No amount of PC misnomers changes Murder to A Right.
We all know that baby body parts are a huge industry, this has never been about Woman’s rights. Men competing in woman’s sports, blows all that faux care about rights away.
Greed is a huge drive, laced with emotionalism and a well funded Soros etc NGO.
I think as a whole, our nation supports a limited right to abortion. The original Roe probably was the ideal compromise. Roe as modified by Casey opened the path for states to enact tighter and tighter restrictions down to the Texas bill which has now tipped the scales to turn the issue over to states to debate and decide. I'd prefer a situation where abortion isn't necessary, but the reality is that life is not always black and white. Again, as a nation, we appear comfortable with ending pregnancies early in some circumstances, which ends the life of unborn children. Similarly, we are equally comfortable with widespread access to firearms, which makes death by firearms a significant cause of death. Both situations come with consequences to life that our nation has chosen to accept.
I think it's an appropriate decision. It's being said over and over, but it's true: the Court in '73 played a game of Twister with the Constitution in order to come up with a "right" that didn't exist.
In doing so, they took away the right of the people to weigh in on whether or not they wanted to permit this de facto genocide in their midst. After all, a civilized people must be one that protects those who are unable to protect themselves, and who is less-able than an unborn child? And I reject the premise that abortion is a "private matter" and is no one else's business. Do we permit a murderer of any living person to claim it's a private matter? Of course not. No matter how much the pro-abortion lobby wishes to deny it, an unborn child is a human person and should be accorded, at a bare minimum, the right to live. Indeed, since many other rights are not accrued until adulthood, that right to life itself is the most basic of rights.
I noticed something the other day while doing some reading on this topic - the black population of the US is 12.4%. Since the largest number of abortions are among black women, abortion has effectively kept that group from growing at the rate that they would otherwise. And if my math is correct, the impact of abortion on numbers of blacks vs. whites is considerably greater. Looks to me that Margaret Sanger's "work" has continued well after her passing.
Agree. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting nonchalant abortions.
It was the right decision.
I believe the court did the correct thing. The abortion issue now returns to the states, where it rightly belongs. Politically, after an initial period of outrage, this should lower the temperature of the abortion debate. It will be one less thing dividing the country on a national scale. I truly doubt that the Congress will ever pass a bill legalizing abortion. As science continues to reveal the sacred nature of what occurs in the womb, the shouts of anger will be reduced to whimpers of shame. I pray that the nation will now become TRULY pro life and lovingly help all who are struggling with unplanned pregnancies, thoughts of suicide, and end of life pain and medical issues. Today’s ruling was the result of millions of answered prayers. Our nation needs to be worthy of the gift we have received.
The fetus has a functioning nervous system at about 8 weeks.
agree!
100% correct ruling. Now the legislative branch of the US government should do their jobs and actually create a bill and pass it that determines when life begins. At that point the unborn will be protected by the 14th amendment. This should wait until after the midterms and hopefully a 2/3 majority of both houses will be able to override a presidential veto.
For the last 50-odd years, abortion at the state level has been a political version of "Name That Tune", never a really serious effort at anything other than a fundraising meme, with each state vying with the other to be the most or least restrictive. It will be really interesting now, because some real thought will need to be put into each state's laws. This is very similar to the Republican Obamacare fight that I (and many others) wanted to see repealed, but when the stars really aligned in a way to make repeal possible, the politicians said "yea, sorry. couldn't really do it".
The leftists and their Marxist threatmongering have terrified some companies and have forced other wokeist companies to go all in. It’s been a battle for women to get maternity leave from some companies but now the companies are throwing money at, uhhhh, “birthing people” to kill their babies. This country has gotten so bassackward - in a very bad way - that the social polizaration has now infected the corporate world. Will it come to list-checking for people to spend their money on the politically correct companies that match their ideologies and boycott others? That’s already happening to some extent but the crazies will keep up their attacks on the conservative folks and companies. But, as you mention, the shareholders will ultimately be the arbiters.
Admittedly, I’m one of them since I own stock in one of those woke companies and totally disagree with spending money to fund infanticide. Companies will justify it as “health care” for the aborters. Holding the stock amounts to dancing with the devil because its real money that is income.
I think the issue would need to be so divisive and expensive for the companies that the ideology/policy becomes a significant share liability which would take a shareholder initiative to get voted on at a shareholder meeting.
Since the left wing media control everything, they’ll fawn over the company practice and drown out dissenting opinions. The pro-life customers will need to unite and be vocal about boycotts and liquidating shares in sufficient quantity that the stock princes decline and cause stock-holder pain. The hissy-fits will last until the election and the boycotters will need to find and be satisfied with alternatives to the companies and their products. It’s becoming a tough call, for sure
exactly! this is one of the reasons that before any decision is taken medical and other counseling is such a serious part of the process (all crammed in that tiny bit of time there is). TQ so much for making this the subject of your article, for it is such a fundamental issue and deserves great care in addressing it. GB
Crime is out of hand, and the Dems are only doing things to make it worse. Our local theater has just come back from the COVID slump and there's all kinds of crime there now. It's disgusting.
Long overdue...
I agree with the decision, it’s murder plain and simple, but I also agree that if the mothers life is in danger then it should be done. But you know as well as I do that this isn’t going to stop anyone from getting one.
This is one decision I think I will invoke my right to not be a witness against myself. I do hate elective abortion though
Agree. It was a badly written, wrong decision.
AGREE!!!!!!!
I don’t know enough about the decision except to say given my remedial understanding of the wisdom of the founding fathers, it seems like right to life belongs with the states.
One concern I have is a Justice Kavanaugh & Coney Barret both expressed support for precedence and said they consider Roe settled law.
Agree. Couldn’t explain better than Alito and Thomas.
I'm going to take the legalistic approach and agree in part and disagree in part.
I agree that Roe v Wade was an horrible judicial error and its foundation was entirely devoid of any actual Constitutional reasoning.
However, I think Justice Alito might have overlooked a key concession of Roe that is central to much of the abortion debate.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Blackmun concluded that, within the law, the unborn child is NOT established as a full person--but at the same time admitted that if personhood were to be established, all claims to a right of abortion would be immediately and irrevocably vacated.
Where this is relevant in the Mississippi case comes from one of the definitions embedded in the statute:
"(g) “Human being” means an individual member of the species Homo sapiens, from and after the point of conception."
https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2018/title-41/chapter-41/gestational-age-act/section-41-41-191/
In other words, the Mississippi statute declares outright the very personhood that Blackmun said was not extant in US law, declined to find for the unborn within Constitutional law, but conceded that, were it ever to be established, would completely derail any notion of a right to an abortion.
Nor is the Mississippi statute the isolated case of this that some might think. We forget that Roe v Wade was decided before the era of DNA evidence--which evidence has long been taken to be tantamount to the establishment of identity. So strong is this linkage between DNA evidence and identity that in 2010 the California Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a "John Doe" arrest warrant where the suspect's name was unknown but there was a DNA profile establishing with particularity the target of the arrest warrant.
https://law.stanford.edu/2010/02/07/john-doe-dna-warrants-and-the-statute-of-limitations/
As a matter of basic biology, in the moment of conception a unique DNA profile is created. The fetus does not have the DNA profile of the mother nor of the father, but rather shares elements of both.
Thus there is a corpus of law that backs the Mississippi statute's declaration of personhood for the unborn, which personhood vacates all claim of right to abortion even by Roe v Wade's own terms.
I think Alito missed a good opportunity to acknowledge the full ramifications of where the law has gone on the subject of DNA and identity: if DNA establishes personhood for the purpose of an arrest warrant it establishes personhood from the moment of conception. With personhood attached to the fetus all debate over abortion ends, for it becomes a clear case of homicide at that point.
My ex wife twice tried to abort our child and it was a massive fight between us, I was 100% against it. She was twice denied abortions, because of her health. When we divorced, I got the kid (after a tough fight against a Judge who thought children always belong to the mother) Her mother moved to the mid-West so she was minimally involved in raising her. I raised her to be a wonderful lady and a trauma nurse.
The day she was born, to this day is the happiest day of my life. Her birth is the best thing to ever happen to me. Being a Dad and able to raise her was also a blessing, although there were trying times, especially between the ages of 11 and 16, I would do it all over again.
Agree - but with limited exceptions, and it should be relegated to the states to decide. And the first thing Queen Nancy screeched this morning was "...overturned a Constitutional right..." No, Queenie, the Constitutional right was the one acknowledged yesterday.
Sorry, don't mean to hijack this post as a "free" subscriber. But since you've covered COVID and the vaccines extensively, here is something that would make a very useful news story if you're inclined.
The "safer" Novavax vaccine, due to be available any day now, has some alarming clinical trial results, including but not limited to reproductive issues:
Source- Clinical trial NEJM publication (Supplementary Appendix, Table S14): https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2116185/suppl_file/nejmoa2116185_appendix.pdf - see page 48
The vaccine group had almost DOUBLE the incidence rate of neoplasms as the placebo group (0.95 vaccine vs. 0.51 placebo).
Ditto for immune system disorders (1.05 vaccine vs. 0.51 placebo).
Reproductive system and breast disorders were also worrisomely elevated (2.00 vaccine vs. 1.25 placebo). That one is notably concerning because the table shows the increase is concentrated in the younger age group. Alarmingly, the FDA briefing document ( https://www.fda.gov/media/158912/download - Page 67) shows 25 miscarriages compared to 41 live births.
Totally agree. Conservative/red states will implement restrictions that protect the child except under nasty circumstances or the health of the mother. Blue/leftist states will spend taxpayer money attracting women, paying for transportation and the procedure for those who want to kill the baby. Some up to the time of birth I’d bet.
Ms Emily, could you coerce Substack into an Android app? I refuse to use Apple. iOS is for the hip crowd. I refuse to be hip.
I think the left and the right in this country have been moving further apart for decades (personally, I think it's mainly the left moving MUCH further left, but that's another conversation - clearly, we're very divided as a nation). And I think this is a big step in the right direction that needs to happen on a broader scale, not just regarding abortion. I think the only way this country can continue to exist without heading toward some sort of secession-like situation is for more power to be returned from the federal government to the states, and for people to be able to live where it suits them best. I know that won't solve everything because the division goes beyond just state-by-state, but also urban vs. rural areas within many states, but having the federal government force one-size-fits-all solutions on everyone is unsustainable.
I really think that abortion is going to become far less important at the federal level. There are too many other things people are concerned with in their everyday lives, and a large portion people for whom this is a top issue probably already live in a state that reflects that, or soon will.
The irony of this ruling vs mandatory covid vaccination. "my body my choice" should go both ways but it doesn't. Many people were told to "move to another state" or "it's your choice to lose your job" or "you're a selfish killer."
I'm not clear the impact of this ruling, the way it's being made out to be. Prior to this ruling the federal govt permitted abortion, but some states such as CA was already pro-abortion. Now that the ruling was overturned, many blue states will still be pro-abortion. CA will even use state funds to fly people in to have an abortion. I'm not clear how this ruling really changes anything for a women who wants to get an abortion.
Are some red states completely illegalizing abortion or is it still permitted up to the first 3 months? While there may be some instances where a woman does not know if they're actually pregnant at the 3 months mark, in most instances and in the rare case of rape, wouldn't most woman know if they want to keep the baby or not in the first 3 months?