The current “legal” regime in the US is that no governmental entity may impinge on the basic “right” of a mother to obtain the private killing of her unborn (or even just-about born) offspring.
Recognizing that states have a right to significantly restrict, even eliminate this “right” undermines entirely the idea that recognition of this abortion “right” is something required by the Constitution.
There are 30 states that, if Roe were overturned, would immediately place significant restrictions on abortion, and around 20 states (I'm doing this from memory) that would all but ban abortions except in the “exception cases.”
That’d be a darned good start on an abortion-free America.
I'm willing to take my loaf of bread a few slices at a time.
sitetest
Well, that’s fine, the argument that it’s got to be overturned is the bottom line, but it’s going to take 5 to do it, and only with a Republican President to get to 5. IMHO there are better options than this Gary dude to put on that seat to ensure that it happens.
“There are 30 states that, if Roe were overturned, would immediately place significant restrictions on abortion, and around 20 states (I’m doing this from memory) that would all but ban abortions except in the “exception cases.” That’d be a darned good start on an abortion-free America. I’m willing to take my loaf of bread a few slices at a time.”
Me, too.
Yeah, I’d love a Constitutional amendment re: abortion, but it’s NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON, so I will take what I can take in the mean time.