If Roe v Wade were overturned it would be up to the States to either pass anti-abortion measures or not. Pointing that out doesn't mean that I support such a reality, let alone that I would support States continuing to allow abortion.
It is just pointing out reality.
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed - and yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
Cognitive dissonance much?
So, you DO NOT believe that the states have the authority to keep abortion legal?
Would you support a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe in which the Court declares the unborn to be persons who are entitled to constitutional rights?
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed
Nevertheless, no such argument has been made.
yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
All I was doing was pointing out your conflicting statements.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Are you directing this question at yourself or are you making it personal?