“Nice rant. It has nothing to do with the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade sends the issue back to the states, however.”
Rant=”to talk noisily, excitedly, or wildly; to scold violently.”
Try using your words more carefully.
What I wrote does not meet the definition unless you feel I am scolding you for your ignorant remarks to which you have no reasonable reply. If you imagine it to be a violent scolding, well....
Abortion=the direct killing of an unborn human being and is not a states’ rights issue.
SCOTUS had the duty to overturn abortion laws as violations of federal law.
Instead, they enshrined murder into law-an unconstitutional position.
Overturning Roe would either prohibit all abortions or return it to the states depending upon how Roe was overturned. Roe was based on two main holdings. First, that the right to privacy (which had already been extended to provide a right to contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut) was implicated by laws which prevented women from getting an abortion. Second, that the “fetus” was not a person under the 14th Amendment. If the court simply says that the right to privacy is not implicated by abortion restrictions then the issue would be returned to the states. However, a much more likely outcome would be for the court to say that privacy is implicated but that the unborn child is a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. If the unborn child is a person under the 14th Amendment then he or she is automatically entitled to “not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” And congress is specifically given power to enforce this Amendment by legislation.