Texas Supreme Court Upholds State Law Banning Abortions

100 thoughts on “Texas Supreme Court Upholds State Law Banning Abortions”

  1. Isn’t this the result that the liberal Democrats wanted? To have these questions decided by the people’s representatives instead of by a group of judges without any accountability?

    1. More of the nonsensical bull preached to you by alt-right media that you aparently believe. It’s not Democrats vs. “the people” at all: it’s Republicans vs. the People. The overwhelming majority of Americans support Roe and didn’t want it overturned. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the right to seek abortion in the case of rape or incest should be preserved. It’s Republicans who are trying to prevent women from seeking abortion care prior to the age of fetal viability, and they represent no more than 30% of the American people. When you imply that “the people’s representatives” are the ones banning abortion, you prove that you’ve been relying on alt-right media. Republicans have outsized power in state government because they gerrymandered their way to power. They still don’t represent the views of “the people”.

  2. Just seems to me a right is a protection that nearly every citizen desires for herself. Clearly that is not the case with abortion, and thus, there is nowhere near enough support to pass a constitutional amendment to make abortion an explicit right. The Founding Fathers wanted a high bar for Constitutional Amendments because they didn’t want the Constitution junked up with trendy and controversial BS.

    The only alternative is for the Supreme Court to tie abortion in a compelling way to a universally accepted right, and after 50 years, jurists are still deeply divided about even that.

    The left’s abortion jurisprudence really came down to (and they’ll deny it) the idea that mere majorities can invent rights. This is dangerous stuff. Rights have traditionally—and rightly–been seen as transcending even majority sentiments, not validating them. A real right is a protection nearly everyone wants for herself. Majorities usually DON’T constitute nearly everyone.

    The fact that leftwing jurists often “interpret” abortion in absolutist ways that defy even majority opinion reveals how unmoored leftwing jurisprudence has become.

    Abortion is not a universal right. After 50 years, it remains a personal preference. Let the legislatures deal with it.

    1. “[M]ere majorities can invent rights.”

      Or, according to conservatives: Majorities in a state can vanquish rights. A collective in, say, Alabama or Texas can control a woman’s body, future, happiness.

  3. Jonathan: I am glad we finally agree on something. You say a Texas law to prevent women from traveling to another state to get an abortion “would be unconstitutional as a limit on the right to travel and other protected rights”. But this is like trying to close the barn door after the horses have fled. On Fox you celebrating the Dobbs decision as a “victory for Trump” and how the states will now get to decide what rights to give women. You called this part of the “democratic process”. Well, the SC opened the door to all sorts of attempts by states. you know the “democratic process”, to enforce their abortion bans–including violating the right to inter-state travel under the Commerce Clause and making it illegal for women to receive abortion pills in the mail. If the SC can pretty much gut the Establishment Clause what is to prevent the right-wing majority on the Court from saying the Commerce Clause is not violated when states enforce their abortion bans. Sounds bizarre I know. But I know how Alito would rule because he is opposed to abortion–any time or anywhere. I think you are reaping the whirlwind by supporting the Dobbs decision.

    On another topic there has been a lot of social media reaction to the incident inside the security vehicle on Jan. 6 when Trump tried to grab the steering wheel and then lunged at the throat of his SS agent. The agent was cool, calm and disciplined by taking Trump by the arm and restraining him. Had I been that SS agent I would have slapped Trump down and told him: “Shut the f… up. You’re going back to the WH!”. That’s what you have to do when confronted by a violent sociopath. Judging from some comments on social media I am not the only one thinks this way. But you have said Trump was entitled to defy the SS. You called what the SS did was an “abduction” and “unlawful”. Your comments are even more bizarre then what Trump wanted to do!

    1. Dennis, the whole SUV incident is completely irrelevant. It’s simply a distraction. What is really the problem is that Trump WANTED to lead the mob to the capitol and the fact that it was armed didn’t matter. He wasn’t concerned about being the target, He was ok with others being the target. NOBODY is disputing those claims. That is the biggest bombshell from the hearing so far. All the talk and gossip about the wheel grabbing and and alleged choking is pointless. What matters is still that trump was intent on leading an armed mob to the Capitol. That in itself is enough to justify criminal charges.

      1. Svelaz: I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. I think we agree on what Trump WANTED. The Q is can the DOJ prove what Trump intended in a court of law? That’s why the incident inside the security vehicle is highly relevant. It shows Trump’s state of mind–his “intent” when he demanded to be taken to the Capitol. Proving “intent” is the hardest part of proving a crime. That’s why former Trump aides and supporters are now trying to discredit Ornato–claiming he has a habit of “lying”. Why do you think Turley spent a whole column in The Hill trying to discredit Hutchinson’s testimony over that incident? Turley understands that the incident is highly relevant to prove Trump’s intent. And why was the DOJ “shocked” by Hutchinson’s testimony? Because she provided one of the “smoking guns” they will need if they decide to charge Trump with any of the crimes under three federal statutes. And why do you think Hutchinson received threats before you gave her depositions from someone in Trump’s orbit? Someone apparently close to Meadows. It’s because Trump/Meadows understand the threat posed by Hutchinson.

        An interesting Q is who were the lawyers hired to represent Hutchinson in her first depositions? Trump has a habit of hiring lawyers for those of his supporters who are called to testify. Like the mafia, he wants to keep everyone a “team player”. He doesn’t want them to go off the reservation. How did the person(s) who sent the threatening messages to Hutchinson (and other witnesses) know she was about to sit down for depositions? And how did they know Trump was reading the transcripts of her testimony? Maybe that’s why Hutchinson decided to hire new lawyers to represent her when she testified on Tuesday. If I were Hutchinson I would want to be placed in the witness protection program in case she is called to testify in any criminal prosecution of Trump. As I tell Jeff, keep your eye on the ball.

        1. Dennis, I understand what you are saying. But there are other claims that are not disputed at all AND and not hearsay. The whole SUV incident if true is certainly an additional piece of proof but, not the most relevant one.

          Remember the fact that Hutchinson’s first hand claims about Trump wanting to let ARMED protesters into the rally and KNOWING the protesters were armed are significant. Far more significant that the SUV story.

          Turley was deflecting from the real issue by focusing on the hearsay that Hutchinson provided. Now there is evidence that the claim is true. The secret service has been gossiping about “an incident” involving the president and the secret service agent driving the SUV .
          I still think the claims of WANTING to lead a known armed mob to the capitol with the clear intent to stop the count and obstruct congress from doing it’s job is the bigger takeaway here. That directly implicates trump with a real crime.

    2. So Trump tried to become a front seat driver from the back seat, actually “comandeer” the beast and strangle his bodyguard? We know this because “somebody told Casey, or she overheard it. Apparently it’s physically impossible because the beast really is a beast and Trump says “I tried to strangle a guy who bench presses 350lb.? I’m not crazy!” I have an idea. Instead of calling them the “Jan.06th. Hearings,”they should call it the “Jan.06th. Hear-Sayings.” And boy, Dennis, you’ve got a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. To call these hearings a kangaroo court is an insult to a noble animal.

  4. With birth control being much cheaper and safer than abortion, why are there so many abortions?

    1. Because birth control sometimes fails. Because for some women, the most effective kinds of birth control cause health problems. Because women and girls are sometimes raped. Because people are sometimes irresponsible. Because women sometimes need an abortion with a wanted pregnancy.

      Maybe all men should be forced to get vasectomies (clearly cheaper and safer than abortion, also cheaper and safer than many other forms of birth control) and reverse them if/when each is ready to have kids.

      1. “Maybe all men should be forced to get vasectomies”

        Clearly a fascist mindset.

        1. Glad to know that you don’t recognize sarcasm unless it’s explicitly marked as such.

          And if you think that’s fascism, then so is “Maybe all women should be forced to bring unwanted pregnancies to term.”

          1. “And if you think that’s fascism, then so is ‘Maybe all women should be forced to bring unwanted pregnancies to term.’”

            Spot on!

            1. So republicans forcing women to have children by banning abortions is fascism .

              1. No. Democrats want fascism without having to worry about the states or the people. They also want the right to kill and be stupid. Abortion still exists.

      2. Practice birth control in depth. Because elective abortion causes health problems including cancer. Rape… rape-rape is a crime against the individual and society and should be reported, and women and girls have an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. Because people have been uniquely groomed to make choices with shared/shifted responsibility. Because it is assumed/asserted that women and men have neither dignity nor agency and may elect to abort the “burden”.

        There is no mystery in sex and conception, couples, with dignity and agency, should enjoy each other’s company with moderation and responsibility individually, to each other, and “our Posterity”.

        That said, overturning Roe, Roe, Roe your baby returns the issue of slavery… diversity [dogma]… human rites (e.g. witch trials, warlock judgments, baby cannibalism and sequestration) to the States. Baby steps, I suppose.

      3. Anonymous: I am simply shocked you would suggest men should be “forced” to get vasectomies! That suggestion is horrifying! Men have a fundamental right to control their own bodies. What would happen to the human race if your proposal was implemented? I know Justice Alito would never support such a law if passed. You understand, of course, I am writing in jest. But you have pointed out the essential hypocrisy in the abortion bans. GOP male politicians, and even GOP women (!!!), want to control women’s bodies like they did in the 17th Century. But the minute you mention a vasectomy men become apoplectic. I got my vasectomy when I was 38–after my first and only child. Best decision I ever made because after I got divorced my partners didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant. Your proposal is entirely sensible but don’t expect to hear that from a lot of the male reactionary chauvinists in this chatroom.

      4. Sometimes? Pretty lame excuses. The bottom line is that for almost all unwanted pregnancies, birth control is safer and cheaper than an abortion or vasectomy. I thought planned parenthood had to do with planning parenthood.

        1. Yes, sometimes.

          No, if you look at the lifetime cost of various kinds of birth control, a vasectomy is probably the cheapest, and it’s also safer than almost any kind of female contraceptive.

          Name one that you think is cheaper and safer, and let’s compare the lifetime costs and the common side-effects.

  5. Child Support starting at conception. No problem to me. As they say, “It takes 2 to tango”. Men should be just as responsible as women. Everybody should live up to their responsibilities. In a state that allows abortion, The father should bear half the cost, if there are costs incurred. The men should have just as much incentive to be responsible as the women. I really see no contradiction there. You can still love and leave but the kid is yours forever. Up to adulthood. Medical bills, drug rehab, college fees, all those things that families have to deal with. Absolutely the men should have to deal with it. Seems to me the state would have a distinct interest in determining the paternity of all children where the father is not named with the expectation that the children are the responsibility of both parents financially and emotionally.

    1. Yes, there is no mystery in sex and conception, sex it’s a party of two with the possibility of one or more guests. Civilized society has a compelling cause to encourage choice with responsibility, and discourage the wicked solution (i.e. homicide/elective abortion, planned parenthood of baby, planned parent/hood of granny) for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

  6. As long as women can cross state lines or get the pills by mail, abortion will be more inconvenient and costly, but nonetheless available. Since anti-abortionists don’t have the nerve to prosecute women, women have de facto freedom to control their bodies as before Dobbs. Women with their significant other will take a trip to a nearby state, have the procedure, take in a bit of the local color, and return home. Abortion tourism will become a national industry.

    1. +100

      Local Chamber of Commerces and the pharmaceutical lobby are planning accordingly. Planning how to step on the groin of this activist court will become cottage industry.

          1. What one might consider common sense doesn’t comply with the Constitution. That is the reason behind amendments to the Constitution. The people or their representatives should be voting for change if a problem exists.

            You don’t understand what the Constitution is or that the people rule, not some crazy leftist.

          2. To keep women affordable, available, and taxable through the exercise of liberal license (e.g. social distancing) under an ethical (i.e. selective, relativistic, opportunistic) religion that sanctions and advises performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, with the assumption/assertion that women and men possess neither the dignity nor agency of their choice(s) with responsibility.

    2. jeffsilberman: Small minds offer facile solutions. Now I wonder what those other laws the Texas legislature is considering. Perhaps a ban on insurance payments to any abortion, in-state or out? That would certainly put a damper on your cozy little “abortion as vacation” scenario.

      1. That won’t work. Because certain medical procedures that are nor abortion can only be done in certain states where the specialists are located. Simply having insurance for travel expenses without mentioning the procedure cannot be enforced. There are many ways to circumvent a ban and surely networks are already in place to help those who have had their freedoms limited.

        In St. Louis Missouri people seeking an abortion can just cross the river and get one. Women are still have freedom in that state. In Missouri women are no longer free. Pretty sad actually.

        1. Svelaz,

          There is one seemingly obvious solution to preventing abortion by a state. Make it murder for a woman to abort. Then, it should not matter if the woman committed this crime out of state, for when she returns, she will be prosecuted. Of course, it might be difficult to prove murder without a corpus delicti.

      2. Giocon1,

        So you anti-abortionists are not content to leave it to the states to decide. You are intent to make abortion illegal throughout the country. Admit it.

      3. Glad to know that you want insurance companies to refuse “payments to any abortion,” including those that endanger the woman’s life. For you, women are nothing but incubators.

    3. Jeff,

      No. RICH women “have de facto freedom to control their bodies as before Dobbs.” POOR women do not. A large # of women in the country are poor or low-income.

      The majority of women who get abortions already have kids. If your kids are young, and you have to travel out of state, you not only have to save up the $ for the abortion, but also $ for travel, and $ for childcare, while losing $ because you have to take time off work to travel out of state.

      “Women with their significant other will take a trip to a nearby state”

      Take a look at the f’g map and see where women will be able to get a legal abortion within 100 miles, within 200 miles, …, and it is insulting to suggest that this is a trip where poor women can “take in a bit of the local color.”

      Every person should have the right to bodily autonomy. This ruling — and the state anti-abortion laws — is just another example of the continuing second-class status of women in the US (along with continued lesser pay, etc.).

      Moreover, the issue is not only women seeking abortion, but ALSO women seeking to fill prescriptions to complete a miscarriage (the same medication as used in medication abortons, so some pharmacists are refusing to fill the prescriptions). Let me guess: your response about miscarriage is the same: “Women with their significant other will take a trip to a nearby state, [get the medication], take in a bit of the local color, and return home. [Miscarriage] tourism will become a national industry.”

      The issue is ALSO women whose health is endangered, but not yet at the point where they’re at risk of dying, so you’re going to make sick women travel.

      The issue is ALSO couples with a wanted pregnancy where the fetus is diagnosed with a condition incompatible with life after birth, who don’t find out until the pregnancy is fairly advanced. You want them to travel in addition to dealing with their grief.

      The issue is ALSO pregnancy from rape, where a woman or girl is already dealing with that trauma and you dismissively suggest she “take in a bit of the local color” in another state. Here’s a story about a pregnant 10 y.o. (who cannot consent and was clearly raped), who had to be taken to another state for an abortion: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

      I don’t generally think of you as sexist, but your dismissiveness of the actual treatment of women and girls here is sexist.

      A loved one of mine died while waiting for an organ transplant. We cannot even demand that people donate their organs after to save someone’s life, but a male majority demands that women donate the use of their bodies for 9 months to gestate an embryo/fetus.

      Take a stand for the privacy rights of women and girls. Take a stand against involuntary servitude. Stop being dismissive.

      1. “ is just another example of the continuing second-class status of women in the US”

        Don’t forget Most other nations, including most of europe

        1. Don’t assume facts not in evidence. If you don’t comment on XYZ, is it always because you forgot about XYZ?

      2. You are completely right. I’ll never accept the religious belief that a “baby” is created at the moment of conception. In reaction to anti-abortionists virtue signaling by calling us “baby killers,” I was purposely being flippant to mock their self-satisfied thinking that they have won this battle over a woman’s bodily autonomy.

        1. Thanks for clarifying. I’m sometimes subject to Poe’s law.

          1. Anonymous,

            I appreciate your schooling. Your umbrage is fully understandable.

    4. “. Since anti-abortionists don’t have the nerve to prosecute women, women have de facto freedom to control their bodies as before Dobbs. Women with their significant other will take a trip to a nearby state, have the procedure, take in a bit of the local color, and return home. Abortion tourism will become a national industry.”

      As far as refusing to prosecute women, you should have fact-checked yourself before pressing send. Their ability to control their bodies just like before Dobbs? This is all sarcasm right?

      1. Enigma,

        I have heretofore been schooled by Anonymous on my devil-may-care attitude. If only men really could get pregnant, we would not be having this national debate.

  7. I’m glad you are not coming down on the side of complete totalitarianism by siding with Texas on banning residents from travelling to other states, Turley. Doesn’t quite make up for your being okay with women to have abortion rights if they have the financial means to travel, but not if they don’t. But hey, as many steps as you can take from the crazy train register as a positive….

    However, your abortion stance is still borderline medieval.

    1. I’m glad you are not coming down on the side of complete totalitarianism by siding with Texas on banning residents from travelling to other states

      You leftist never get this debate right. I think its because you use your personal philosophy of matters like abortion, and thing the other side is just as shallow as you are.

      For the umpteenth time. Turley has not picked a side to align with. He follows the precepts as stated in the Constitution. But you think the people have a ‘right’ to travel. But the Constitution just prohibits the govt from restricting travel. Abortion has nothing to do with it.

      1. How could I think the ‘other side’ is as shallow as I am? You guys are infinitely more. It’s like you’re all running around in this perpetual cloud of etheric ignorance where you periodically stop and masturbate in public thinking the world wants to see it.

      2. Actually, the Constitution allows states to prohibit travel for some things, such as sex trafficking.

        We already know that the anti-abortion extremists are planning to argue that the embryo is a person and taking it out of state to harm it is like taking a minor out of state for sex trafficking and should be illegal.

          1. No, because prostitution is illegal in nearly every state except Nevada

            1. BWAHAHAHAHAA

              Doesnt stop you from parading up and down this forum in cheap dresses, awful perfume and smelling nasty af

        1. No, states don’t restrict travel for sex trafficking if it’s legal in one state. Sex trafficking is illegal in every state. When it’s legal in one state such as abortion travel itself cannot be prohibited. Once a resident crosses a state line they are no longer bound by their state law banning abortion. There is a distinction.

          Just like with marijuana. Where it’s legal they cannot be prosecuted because they crossed into legal territory. But they can be arrested if they come back to their state under the influence and carrying marijuana into the state where it is illegal.

          With abortion that is much much harder to enforce because they cannot punish a woman for having had an abortion where it was legal. How would a state even determine if a woman had an abortion out of state? The only way for that to happen is for women to be constantly under surveillance or relying on snitches in their state.

          Google is already planning on deleting any data that would allow states to track women who use certain apps to determine if they are seeking an abortion.

          1. “When it’s legal in one state such as abortion travel itself cannot be prohibited.”

            That doesn’t mean that anti-abortion extremists won’t try to outlaw it, and it doesn’t mean that anti-abortion jurists won’t allow them to do it. Also: pay attention to the actual argument. The legal details matter, just like with SB8 in Texas, which the conservatives on SCOTUS also refused to stay, even though it was unconstitutional.

            For goodness sake, Clarence Thomas is arguing that Griswold, Obergefell and Lawrence were wrongly decided.

            1. Anonymous, I get that. Extremists will be pushing the boundaries of what they can do for a while. Until “their:”: Supreme Court tells them they can’t. Suing people who try to cross state lines will be very difficult since they rely on private individuals to enforce the law instead of the state. The majority of people don’t have the time or resources to sue anyone who they “think” committed the violation.

              Other states are already enacting laws protecting clinics and individuals from such lawsuits by making by shielding clinics and their records from being sent to other states for prosecutors to use. Google is already putting in place policy to delete information that can be used against women in illegal states.

              Texas can pass as many laws as it wants trying to punish women form seeking an abortion but they will be having a lot of trouble trying to enforce them. That will be the next battle among the states. Enforcement.

      3. The constitution prohibits government from infringing a person’s liberty which can also mean the right to feely travel anywhere they choose.

        Those who are against abortion are not stopping at just banning the procedure int their states but are going much further and are now proposing laws that would prohibit travel to states where it’s legal. The big question on such a law is how would it be enforced?

        States can’t really enforce abortions medication by mail since they would have to open every package and be constantly surveilling women’s private data to determine who is seeking an abortion.

        In Missouri there is a big challenge brewing on how to enforce their ban. An abortion clinic in St. Lous is moving across the river to Illinois where abortion is protected by state law. Missouri is proposing a law that lets people sue anyone who goes across the river including the clinic itself if a Missouri resident gets an abortion.

        Missouri is already considering suing Illinois for allowing abortions just across the river arguing that their access to abortion undermines their ban.

        Texas will seek to punish companies that are compensating their employees for travel to a state where abortions are legal challenging companies freedom of speech in the process. The state would effectively be telling private companies what they can and cannot do with their money which the conservatives in the Supreme Court have clearly stated that money is speech.

        1. “Those who are against abortion are not stopping at just banning the procedure int their states but are going much further and are now proposing laws that would prohibit travel to states where it’s legal?”

          Svelaz, this might be a first. We are in agreement. I do not believe states will be permitted to act in that fashion. You are crazy left where hypocrisy and error constantly presents itself. The left agrees with you. Add the independents and those on the right that agree with you, and there are not many people left to resist interstate travel for abortion.

          My guess is that now that the law is settled, states that are very strict will gradually permit a loosening of their laws. In any event, there are planes, trains, buses and cars. Almost all Americans utilize such services in their normal lives almost daily.

          1. “ Svelaz, this might be a first. We are in agreement. I do not believe states will be permitted to act in that fashion.”

            Well that is certainly a rare moment. States may can try. Especially in states where extremists and religious zealots are already in power. Never underestimate religious zealots. They already have plenty of support on the Supreme Court.

            1. Who is a religious zealot at the state level? I think you involuntarily blurt these things out. However, if you provide a name, add a bit of proof other than innuendo.

              There are none on the Supreme Court, though some are religious.

              The people will make their decisions, and the laws will reflect the people.

              1. There are plenty of religious zealots in power. Texas has them. Missouri has them. Even in Arkansas where they want to punish women for having an abortion by setting prison time.

                They don’t want to just be satisfied with banning abortion in their state. They want to ban abortions in other states where it’s legal. They want it fierce their values on everyone else by force of law. Pretty much what fascism is.

                1. “Even in Arkansas where they want to punish women for having an abortion by setting prison time.”

                  Your Woke clerics salivate at sacrificing live babies, babies born with down syndrome and cum over themselves at the thought of assisted suicide. Pity they dont just sacrifice themselves to rid the world of such cultists. Join them!

                2. “There are plenty of religious zealots in power. Texas has them. Missouri has them. “

                  I am sure there are religious zealots, but they are not in control of any of the states you mention. That is why you can’t mention the names or their position. Your views of what will happen are extremist, and doesn’t help get you where you want to go.

  8. I am one of those conflicted by “banning abortion.” However, a law restricting women from leaving the state to get one or against mail order Plan B meds is completely wrong.

  9. I’d have no problem with that, assuming that paternity could be established by DNA testing. Why do you think that others would? Responsibility for choice extends both ways

    1. whig98: Why do you assume that only single women get abortions? Your thinking is as damaged as those on the left. As for “responsibility” — did you ever stop to think that there might be legitimate reasons, other than “irresponsible behavior,” for getting this procedure? And when a state bans all abortions in cases of rape and incest, we have truly returned to the Dark Ages.

      1. Rape… rape-rape, and incest separately, are edge cases, that do not validate the rule of trans/humane choice (e.g. wicked solution a.k.a. elective abortion a.k.a. planned parenthood for baby a.k.a. planned parent/hood for granny).

        That said, six weeks to baby meets granny, in state, if not in process. An equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities, in order to keep women, and girls, affordable, available, and taxable.

        Civilized society has a compelling cause to discourage the performance of human rites and other homicidal choices for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

  10. Music
    There’s a hole in your rubber…dear Liza dear Liza…
    There’s a hole in your rubber dear Liza a hole!

    Then fix it dear Donald, dear Donald dear Donald.
    Your a Trump dear Donald so seal up that hole!

  11. So fellas, just so you know-

    Child support will now start at conception…

    1. Child support will now start at conception…

      Just so you know….then guys would have a vote on abortion.

      1. They already did vote on abortion. That’s why Roe was overturned.

        1. Roe, Roe, Roe your baby… fetus (a technical term of art for social distance) was overturned because while demos-cracy (i.e. “burden”) is indeed aborted in darkness at the twilight fringe, the Constitution neither sanctions nor advises that rite. Overturning Roe, Roe, Roe your baby returns the issue of slavery… diversity [dogma]… human rites (e.g. witch trials, warlock judgments, baby cannibalism and sequestration) to the States.

          That said, a woman and man have an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. Perhaps the abortionists could expand the right of self-defense to be equitable and inclusive because both sexes, and individuals in the transgender spectrum, should have an equal right to abort their “burdens” for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

Comments are closed.