[mvpel]

The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child, on the basis of the principle that one is to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Kevin Curry]

You are a disgusting piece of work.

A more workable solution in any event would be to convict and jail for a lo-o-o-o-o-o-n-g time any doctor, nurse or other person who assisted the woman to have an abortion.

It might be difficult to convict a punish a woman who was determined to end the life of her unborn child. But it would be quite appropriate to covict the Kevorkian vultures who are "crawling up her vagina" to kill the child.

[luckymom]

you're kidding, right?

[Southack]

Lets not forget that ALL humans have rights, born or unborn, and merely killing someone "privately" is still killing.

There might be a valid debate about precisely when life starts, but outside of that issue, killing is still killing.

[Anti-Bolshevik]

"The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child, on the basis of the principle that one is to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The first sectioned that I bold-printed says it all. The Court simply decided -- with absolutely no Constitutional provision to support it.

As to the second suggestion: to even remotely insinuate that the 4th amendment clause against unreasonable search & seizure has ANYTHING to do with the destruction of unborn life in the womb would require a leap of logic. The founders meant nothing of the kind when that amendment was ratified and there is a huge burden of proof on your shoulders to prove otherwise.

[MHGinTN]

The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child ... What a perplexing commentary! You admit that it is a child I want to protect, yet you appear to lobby for the right to hire a serial killer to slaughter that child on the grounds that a woman must stop someone from 'crawling up her vagina'. Astonishing duplicity on your part. What an amazing overt defense of serial killing int he name of rights ... ignoring, of ocurse, the inalienable right to life. [Are you Kim Gandy, by some stretch of chance?... NO! You're Kate Michelman!!]