“enough evidence”
A staff member would be able to gather evidence.
An insurer might have lots of evidence.
A bank or other payment processor might have lots of evidence.
I think that lawsuits should not be allowed if there is a fundamental lack of standing.
Daddies often would have good claims, as well as grandmothers and grandfathers.
A state government might have claims for lost sales tax revenue, but the K-12 educational costs would far outweigh the loss of sales tax revenue.
I think once a heart starts beating the baby needs to be considered a living being, pure and simple.
The baby’s unique DNA, partially inherited from mom and partially from dad, clearly marks it as an independent being.
Roe. v. Wade ignored the science and implications of DNA, which courts dealing with family matters have considered important whenever judicially relevant for decades.
Is a human baby with a beating heart less entitled to state law protection as living being than a snail darter?
Consider the uproar if a prosecutor said publicly that he would not prosecute anyone who killed someone with an extensive prior criminal record, if a plausible argument could be made that it was self-defense.
We are looking at this the wrong way. The AG flexing for the state buttresses our position. Isn’t what we keep chiming about state’s rights? Especially as it pertains to Roe V Wade?
.