No, it didn’t, it merely said that that particular law didn’t apply to women getting abortions in clinics. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law knows, the fact that Law A does not apply to a particular act does not mean that such act cannot be proscribed by Law B or Law C or Law D. Exclusion of certain acts from coverage by a particular law does not create a “safe harbor” for the commission of such acts. Just about every federal law has limitations, exceptions and exclusions, and it is idiotic to read them as “legalizing” the acts that such law does not cover.
Had William Wilberforce been as stubborn and stupid as you, slavery would have lasted untilthe 20th century.
Wrong. Virtually every bill now passed by NRTL and it’s “pro-life” legislators completely conforms itself to Roe and grants explicit license to kill, encoding that permission in the statutes. All you need to understand this is basic reading comprehension skills.
What a bunch of legalistic gobledygook. No wonder the "pro-life movement" has gotten nowhere in forty years.
What part of the following do you fail to understand?
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.