She lives in a blue state, IL. Does she really think IL would restrict abortion or does she not understand what overturning RvW means?
probably the latter
Attacking Roe is stupid.
Making abortion socially unacceptable is easier (hell, we’re nearly there) and cutting off funding for abortion is easier too.
The most defensible ground there is is to say, “Roe is one of the best cases of 10th Amendment infringement ever. It’s a clear violation of state’s rights. However, it’s done. That however doesn’t mean taxpayers should be made to fund it. There’s no constitutional mandate for that. And more to the point, its a violation of men’s rights, in that the child is co-authored, yet only the woman decides.”
“Saying all of this, abortion, as a national evil is best dealt with by making it reprehensible, publicly unacceptable, a national stain, but nonetheless legal. We tried this with alcohol, and it doesn’t work.
And there is the legitimate point that any law prohibiting abortion does further infringe on the personal freedom of women in the most intimate areas of their lives.
So, no, as SCOTUS justice, we’ll let that very ugly dog lie right where it is. Let it be a monument to bad Constitutional law.
Does she not understand what overturning RvW means?”
No not a clue. RVW will not be overturned Roberts will never do it and there is not 1 State that will outright ban 1st trimester abortions. Bank it.