ed wrote:RCC: Act II wrote:Abdul Alhazred wrote:... in favor of some restrictions for abortion ...
That is why.
Which illustrates why I think specific legislation would be better that just relying on the penumbras of the constitution.
After all, they do it with (other) civil rights legislation all the time.
The "restrictions" are fair enough under Roe, the issue is when those "restrictions" are done in bad faith. The flavor of the month is using "the health of the mother" as a pretense to ram through all sorts of bullshit that make it far more difficult, if not impossible to have a procedure that is as safe as if not safer than any minor medical procedure done under far less restriction. Getting wisdom teeth removed or a colonoscopy is more dangerous.
That's where the action is now. States trying to close abortion clinics and then making people jump through hoops under time pressure, using the "health of the mother" as a pretext.
You don't have to overturn Roe to make Roe a nullity. That is done by not at all questioning states that use this bad faith approach.
If elected officials pass laws to restrict abortion and they get reelected and the voters let that organization stand, isn't that the way things are supposed to work?
Seriously. Isn't the "outrage" over a SCOTUS review of Roe because some feel that if the decision reverts to the states the will of the people might not reflect the "right" result? That the elites should be able to have their world view be the law of the land?
I am personally in favor of giving women the right to choose but the arrogance of the left is really breathtaking. The assumption is that Roe is right and true and the way things ought to be and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi, or worse. And that if a group of citizens choose to support a different view they are evil and diseased in some way. Wow.