Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia has caused a bit of a stir after a hearing in a criminal case where she called for briefing on the alternative grounds for the right to an abortion. At the hearing, Judge Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude could be used to guarantee a women’s right to an abortion notwithstanding the Court’s recent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court stressed that the decision that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion was based on the 14th Amendment, but was silent on the 13th Amendment or other grounds. The problem is that silence may be the most charitable response to this highly dubious theory, which has been bantered about in academic circles for years. The theory runs against the text, history, and case law of the Thirteenth Amendment.
The court came to this question by a rather circuitous route. Lauren Handy and nine other anti-abortion activists were charged last year with conspiring to obstruct access to a Washington abortion clinic on Oct. 22, 2020. They have asked for the dismissal of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction since the Court ruled in Dobbs that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”
Kollar-Kotelly suggested that, just because the Court said that there was no right of abortion under the Constitution, it does not mean that there is no right to abortion under the Constitution. The reason that abortion may still be a protected constitutional right, according to the court, is that the Dobbs majority did not expressly rule out other possible grounds like servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Thirteenth Amendment states in part:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Kollar-Kotelly stated in her order that the 13th Amendment “has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision” on the question of whether that section of the constitution could apply to abortion. That academic attention is generally a reference to a 1990 Northwestern University Law Review article, which is cited by the Court in its order. Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U.L. Rev. 480, 484 (1990). Professor Koppelman quoted a 1911 servitude decision in Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 241 (1911), to assert that
Abortion prohibitions violate the amendment’s guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates “that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.”
Bailey involved an Alabama law making it a crime to refuse to do labor under a contract.
Others have argued for a more expansive interpretation of the 13th Amendment to be used in cases of child abuse. Akhil Reed Amar & Daniel Widawsky, Child Abuse as Slavery: A Thirteenth Amendment Response to DeShaney, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1359, 1365–66 (1992).
The court’s other citation is to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). In that case, the court reversed a lower court decision imposing sanctions for making this argument as a frivolous claim. The 1995 opinion found that, “without expressing a view on the merits of the involuntary servitude argument, we hold that it is not frivolous.”
The citation to the 10th Circuit case is illustrative of the court’s overall reasoning. It suggests that the 10th Circuit gave credence to this claim by declaring it not frivolous. However, the standard for sanctions is fairly high. The court was merely saying that this was within the broad scope of arguments that could be made in a court. That was notably before the Dobbs decision but even today I would argue for the same result. Sanctions can deter lawyers from seeking to change existing judicial doctrines and standards. It was not any real endorsement of the underlying theory to say that it was not sanctionable conduct to raise it in a court of law.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly used these two sources to conclude that “the Court will require additional briefing” because Dobbs did not expressly reject this theory or other theories. The court added:
“Rather, the question before the Court in Dobbs was whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provided such a right. That is why neither the majority nor the dissent in Dobbs analyzed anything but the Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote. “In fact, on the Court’s initial review, not a single amicus brief mentioned anything but the Fourteenth Amendment and the unratified Equal Rights Amendment.”
Judge Kollar-Kotelly insists that she is being “mindful that that this Court is bound by holdings.” However, she insists “it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised.”
It is also true that the Supreme Court also did not rule out a theory based on the Preamble. That “possibility” does not make a Preamble claim viable or credible after Dobbs. It also did not rule out a Ninth Amendment claim, but it still sent the matter back to the states.
The long historical analysis considered whether abortion was viewed as a protected right at the time of the Framers. The Court concluded that it did not. As discussed in prior decisions (and given the reliance in Dobbs on history), it is worth noting that at the time of the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865, 27 of the 36 states had enacted statutes prohibiting abortion. That included 21 of the 27 ratifying states.
That does not mean that the Court was right and many disagree with the holding. However, the fact that the Court did not expressly reject the 13th Amendment argument is a hardly compelling basis for suggesting that abortion may still be protected under the Constitution.
The Court itself has rejected expansive readings of the 13th Amendments, including in Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), where it rejected such a claim to challenge military conscription. Moreover, the Court has long rejected “novel” 13th Amendment arguments. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282 (1897), the Court stated:
“[T]he amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional; such as military and naval enlistments, or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards.”
Nevertheless, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered briefing on whether “any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter, which may or may not be addressed in Dobbs, such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question.”
For its part, the Supreme Court did not sound like it had lingering doubts about alternative grounds for a federal right to abortion when it declared:
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. ‘The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.’”
Here is the order: United States v. Handy
Sort of like taking a 500 year old torture technique, knowing it’s a war crime that violates Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty (and federal criminal law), then in a premeditated way simply “renaming” the technique to “Enhanced Interrogation”.
These government officials also swore supreme loyalty to follow the U.S. Constitution, as a condition of retaining authority (Title 5 US Code 3331).
Simply renaming it makes it legal. This was the invention of the greatest Conservative legal minds in America that attended America’s top law schools.
This judge is no more radical than the Bush torture lawyers!
Maybe some other judge will rule abortion is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, which requires equal protection under the law. Why in New York, for example, is it legal to kill certain human beings based not on any threat they pose but where they happen to be living when they are killed? In the Empire State, if a human being happens to be living outside her mother’s womb, she is protected by the law. Inside her mother’s womb, she is fair game.
Why should an embryo be allowed to use a woman’s womb against her will?
Why should any citizen have their tax money pay to kill the unborn against their will?
For the same reason that people are taxed for wars they don’t support: we live in representative democracy, and we’re stuck with the votes our members of Congress and state legislators and executives make until we can vote them out of office.
The killing of the unborn is not a government responsibility. That is the problem with you. You wish to collectivize a free people.
Why should you have a right to murder?
I’m not the one doing it.
And many people don’t consider it murder.
And many people don’t consider it murder.
Gosh, it would be very Constitutional for the People to decide which side is right. Since the Judiciary has no guidance.
At the very least it is killing.
While we do not generally involve government when you kill ants.
We do if you kill dogs.
whatever you consider a fetus, for the last 6 months it is atleast as significant as a dog.
Many people don’t consider it murder.
Many people don’t consider killing gays murder. Many people don’t consider killing a woman for not covering up murder. Are you approving of those murders as well?
“Many” is undefinable and irrelevant in this context.
But you are admitting the People have the power to decide, not the Judiciary.
Why should you be allowed to walk the planet against my will?
Is being compelled to support a child til 18 and beyond involuntary servitude? That case is easier to make.
They are really running with the idea that there is such a thing as consensual ‘forced’ pregnancy, huh? This is not rocket science. Have intercourse and there is a possibility of a baby resulting from that act, every single time. To have to elucidate that point it is beyond absurd. I no longer know what to say about the left other than an idea like this seems to me to be the epitome of the victim generation’s insistence that they be freed from any consequences for their actions, or any accountability or responsibility, to anything or anyone, whatsoever, for all time so they can get high and make Etsy crafts. The very notion of being a functional adult instills terror formerly reserved for people fleeing war zones. This woman is insane. The modern left is insane.
Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
@Anonymous
True . . . if you are emotionally about five years old. If the people involved are not prepared to deal with the realities of what might transpire afterward, they probably aren’t mature enough to be doing the thing that caused the ‘problem’ in the first place. Even birth control can fail, though in this day and age it’s rare.
Here’s what I propose: instead of abortions, we will sterilize or castrate young people when they reach the age that modern liberals consider to be the ‘appropriate age’ for sexual activity. No longer a problem. I can’t help but notice a lot of trans ‘men’ wish to retain their ability to have children, which is such an oxymoron one is tempted to just focus on the moron half of that word. By all means though, keep hitting us with your logic bombs. Sheesh. If you do have kids (I suspect you don’t, though I have no way of knowing, or if you are still a kid yourself), I pity them. 🙄🙄
James,
Funny enough, I read an article that reported an increase in vasectomies after the recent Roe ruling.
Maybe there is an upside to Leftists upsidedown thinking!
@Upstate
I appreciate your candor, but I am tempted to start suggesting young people study counseling (or reconstructive surgery!) – the bad decisions made by the far too young with the support of their supposed guardians is going to create quite a market when these individuals realize they are barely halfway done with their lives at 40. This particular proposal by this particular judge is so gobsmackingly stupid, and so denigrating to people that actually endured the horrors of slavery or servitude – really. I am at a loss for words. This left is no longer a party, and I don’t even know what it is they have become; I obviously wasn’t alive when Rome was burning. Caligula would be telling these people they’d gone way, way too far.
James,
Yeah, but reading some of the Leftist comments . . . I only wished their mothers would of felt the same way about abortion and got one.
The world would of been such a better place for it.
Would have been fine with me, but my mom, a lifelong supporter of Planned Parenthood, didn’t want an abortion herself, and that was her choice to make, just like the choice to have an abortion.
Clearly, she should of had the abortion.
We wished she would of.
You know, wishing that someone were dead is rather uncivil. You already had one comment deleted for that reason (directed from you to Dennis). Are you trying to get Darren to ban you?
Correction: you didn’t wish Dennis dead. You said that you might need to take up a gun to stop people like Dennis.
No.
I said I wish your mother would of exercised her abortion rights.
According to you, that is not violence, or murder or wishing someone dead seeing as how if they were not born in the first place, it is not murder or wishing someone dead. It is just a blob of cells. The mother can willfully terminate that blob of cells at anytime.
I am not being uncivil. I am just pointing out your logic.
If Darren thinks I am being uncivil for using your logic, that is his decision.
BTW, I knew you would be predictable enough to attempt that argument.
Thank you for playing.
Upstate, your logic is impeccable. You have ATS on the spit and all that remains is do we want him rare, medium or well done.
I’ve NEVER said like calling it “a blob of cells.” It’s not a “blob” at any stage. In fact, in my 11:24 AM comment, I corrected another Anonymous calling it “a small mass of white goo.”
“I said I wish your mother would of exercised her abortion rights.”
Which implies that you wish I hadn’t been born. And I’m pointing out that that’s not a particularly civil thing to say.
More importantly, it’s irrelevant what you wish. The decision belongs to the pregnant woman, both in choosing to terminate the pregnancy and in choosing to continue it.
Okay.
You said “a small mass of white goo.”
Still the same.
I cannot be uncivil to “a small mass of white goo.” It is not a person yet. It has not been born. The “a small mass of white goo.” could of even been in the birth canal, even see the light at the end of the tunnel, the mother yells, “Abort! Abort! Abort!” and it would not be wishing death, or murder on someone.
After all, it is just “a small mass of white goo.” Nothing uncivil about that.
“You said that you might need to take up a gun to stop people like Dennis.”
That actually a reference to I would need to take up a gun to stop people like Dennis, in self-defense.
Bill Maher recently noted that the Red Guard does exist here in the US. But it is raging on social media. Like all totalitarian fascists, the woke Leftist mob will not be satisfied with just social media. As we have seen more and more push back against wokeism, the Left cannot stand for that, and will escalate the situation to the point I would even say, incite a civil war.
So, yeah, taking up arms in self-defense might be necessary.
UpstateFarmer,
“You said “a small mass of white goo.””
NO.
I’m the Anonymous who CORRECTED the person who said “a small mass of white goo.” I’ll repeat what I said in response to that other Anonymous:
I’m pro-choice, and your claim that “at 6 weeks the ‘baby’ is just a small mass of white goo” is as full of sh** as Allan’s and Thinkitthrough’s daily garbage.
At no point is a zygote or embryo “goo.”
Here’s what an embryo looks like at 6 weeks: https://www.ehd.org/virtual-human-embryo/stage.php?stage=17
If you, too, are pro-choice, it behooves you to get the science right.
“That actually a reference to I would need to take up a gun to stop people like Dennis, in self-defense.”
And Darren/Turley found it uncivil enough that they removed it.
“the Left … will escalate the situation to the point I would even say, incite a civil war.”
BS. You’re the one arguing for taking up arms, not me.
So, Upstate Farmer is a hypocrite.
That is an interesting question: Can we claim self-defense for “a small mass of white goo?”
Apparently Upstate Farmer is not only pro-choice, but he actively wishes that liberal women have abortions.
It’s not rare for birth control to fail.
It’s not rare for women to be raped.
It’s not rare for fetuses to be diagnosed with fatal abnormalities.
It’s not rare for pregnant women to develop serious pregnancy-related health problems.
It’s not rare for people to fail to use birth control with consensual sex.
“they probably aren’t mature enough to be doing the thing that caused the ‘problem’ in the first place”
Unless it’s rape, it’s legal, regardless of your personal — and baseless — opinion about their maturity level.
50% of women who get an abortion do it again. That my freind is what is not rare.
I didn’t say it’s rare. I agree that it isn’t.
Face it, you have no problem with killing if it makes going to a cube jockey job or whatever pathetic endeavor you’re protecting easier.
You’re a psychopath. The fact that there are many of you, doesn’t make it any less psychotic.
You are making a point that has merit..
@anon
Last time I ever respond to you, henceforth you are persona non-grata, though I doubt that will stop you from pestering myself or others. Yes, though some methods are obviously more effective than others, birth control efficacy is quite good in the United States, the country in question:
https://www.acog.org/womens-health/infographics/effectiveness-of-birth-control-methods
And that was the topic in question, not your conflation of other topics. Barring the horror of assault of course, realistic or not, it’s really easy to not get pregnant if you don’t have sex at all, and that would appear to be the option that is barely emphasized these days within the left for young people. And as always, non-dem does not automatically mean conservative, and I am neither. Just particularly not dem.
If you look at that middle group of contraceptives, with 6-12 pregnancies per 100 women per year, do you have any idea how many unwanted pregnancies that means? There are ~65 million women in their childbearing years in the US. If all of them were sexually active and without fertility problems and using a method with a 6% failure rate, that would be ~3.9 million unintended pregnancies annually.
Good luck telling people not to have sex. If it’s not pleasurable for you and your partner, you’re doing it wrong.
Are you playing with numbers or just plain lying?
“If it’s not pleasurable for you and your partner, you’re doing it wrong.”
So is doing heroin, so I guess we should just teach how to shoot up.
That’s quite a non sequitur. Sex is not only natural, but we’ve evolved to enjoy it. Shooting drugs is not natural. You literally need an manmade tool to do it.
Opium is natural and people have been using it for as long as we know.
He said “how to shoot up.”
And abortion as it is performed today was not possible even a century ago.
Drug use is as old as abortion, and both have changed with modern technology.
They’re not natural either, which is what my response to Jim22 was about: the difference between things that are natural (e.g., sex) and those that aren’t (e.g., shooting up heroin).
Your response was pedantic and stupid.
There was nothing wrong with jim22’s analogy.
You just wanted to piss over it out of political spite, and manufactured bad artificial criteria that was irrelevant, and wrong.
Every difference does not matter.
Some matter some don’t. We do not need needles to abuse opiods.
I think your responses are pedantic and stupid too.
Opinions: we all have them, and they often differ.
You seem to think that everything is an opinion, and that all opinions are equal.
That is obvious logical error.
I do not care what you think of my posts.
The FACT is that you ERRED.
There was nothing wrong with the analogy that you attacked.
Yes, I am being pedantic with you.
That is inevitable, when chriticizing obviously pedantic claims
ATS, when you get older and smarter, you will recognize that a cause leads to an effect. Act responsibly.
further proof that the left will twist, turn and mangle the Constitution in an effort to get what they want
Responding to PeterK:
Her constitutional theory has more merit than the rightwing” Citizens United” ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Refresher:
“Citizen United” essentially means the Founding Fathers designed the Bill of Rights giving “corporations” superior and unequal rights greater than humans have. Must have missed that part in American government class.
“Citizens United” says that “corporate-persons” have more rights than “human-persons”. Also that it’s only flows in one direction for corporations only. “Corporate-persons” have more constitutional rights/benefits, but have none of the legal responsibilities as “human-persons”.
This rightwing “legalese” contradicts previous rightwing logic. The purpose of the “corporate veil” was to protect the assets of business owners and shareholders. By creating 2 persons (corporate-person and human-person) if the company went bankrupt or got sued, the human-owners’ assets were protected. The business might close but creditors/litigants couldn’t go after the owners personal house and personal assets. The human-owner could then start a second fictitious “corporate-person”.
Her interpretation is far less radical than the “Citizen United” ruling (invented by Conservatives) and without the legally required constitutional amendment process to change the Bill of Rights.
Ashcroft and all the other liberals have no issue with UNIONS being able to finance campaigns, it is just corporations that need to be banned. Meanwhile Aschroft has no issue with the local unions donating to the City Council and then having the same City Council signing the new and enhanced contract for the UNION.
As prophet of the banally obvious, JT spends some of his apparently infinite non-academic time to list the banally obvious flaws in the 13th amendment argument. A high schooler coiuld have done this. So the real question is why JT does not spend any of his apparently infinite time for critiques of equally flawed right-wing arguments on similarly fraught topics. Oh yeah–follow the (Fox) money.
Your comment is obviously banal.
Remove the B and I concur
Oviously? Oh, you must mean the other word.
Since the subject is, according to the abortionists, not a person but a bundle of cells there is noone to serve and thus the question is moot.
Anti-abortion laws make clear that the state’s interests are being served by forcing the woman to bring the pregnancy to term. The question is not moot.
Anti-abortion laws make clear that the state’s interests are being served by forcing the woman to bring the pregnancy to term. The question is not moot.
The States (Peoples) interest is protecting human life. That’s a universal concern for the State(People)
Then according to you, living frozen embryos can’t be discarded by the people who make them..
Then according to you, living frozen embryos can’t be discarded by the people who make them..
You are perfectly fine in randomly defining when life warrants Constitutional Protection. Why would you deny ofhers the same latitude. After all, those are the things the legislature is much more able to define than Judges.
This judge disagrees with you.
This judge disagrees with drinking age, age to drive,military service age, age of consent, age of marriage.age to attend school, etc?
I’m not a lawyer but couldn’t I also argue that taxation is also “involuntary servitude” and therefore I should not be compelled to pay them or its a violation of my personal liberty?
Unnecessary.
“All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (And no, fetuses can’t be naturalized considering they might have a rather tough time reciting the oath.)
Big government forcing women to stay pregnant — to give birth like arbitrary broodmares — is unconstitutional.
So come on now, all you self-loving Originalist Textualist Scalias out there, what do the words of the 14th literally say about that literal line between citizen and non-citizen, and thus the endowment of rights?
The woman, the citizen herself, gets to decide whether cells within her develop: not you or your bereft religion or least of all the government.
Your argument assumes that only citizens are entitled to rights in this country. In fact most people that are present here have rights (even illegal aliens). Extending those rights to unborn babies doesn’t seem a stretch.
“(And no, fetuses can’t be naturalized considering they might have a rather tough time reciting the oath.)”
I guess we can kill infants and toddlers to then.
Infants and toddlers are born.
So?
So if they’re born in the US or to a US parent, they have citizenship without need to recite an oath.
That need not be true and one argue against such citizenship.
Inalianable rights do not require a govt. Being born in the US has no bearing on it.
Citizenship isn’t an inalienable right. You seem to be having difficulty attending to the context of this subthread: “All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
That only means that a fetus is not a citizen.
It is still a human being though. Unless you’re arguing that the border crossing aliens are not human too? After all they’re not citizens.
Just when I think the judiciary has gone as far in whacked out theories as they can go, they go even further. Biology be damned, I suppose.
WOW, talk about a complete b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n of the law to fit ones twisted view of the world while completely denying the unborn human being the innate human right to life.
Imagine if you will a higher order thinking culture that has all the modern technological and medical advancements that the planet has to offer at its fingertips and that culture chooses to freely give some individuals the ultimate legal power to permanently remove defenseless human beings from their lives because they are “unwanted” and the removal method of choice is extermination.
Imagine forcing a woman to labor against her will on behalf of an embryo.
Imagine if the woman kept her legs closed. No worry about how an embryo got there in the first place.
Imagine if the hairless ape used a sock?
Yep, women are never raped, and birth control never fails.
You clearly didn’t read the blog post I linked to above. How about you read and learn instead of simply parroting pure propaganda.
Your link is irrelevant to Wen Bars’ stupid comment, which is who I was responding to there. Moreover, the facts I alluded to are not “propagandal”
*propaganda
Anonymous wrote, “Your link is irrelevant to Wen Bars’ stupid comment, which is who I was responding to there.”
Irrelevant? You’re a rationalizing fool.
What Wen Bars was referring to in his comment was personal responsibility, which is exactly what my blog post is about. What you did was to try and deflect from that personal responsibility theme and insert rape and contraceptive fails. Whenever a pro-life person starts talking about personal responsibilities pro-abortion activists always say it’s irrelevant when in fact it’s the core problem that’s being actively and immorally ignored.
Anonymous wrote, “Moreover, the facts I alluded to are not ‘propaganda’ “.
If you actually think that then you’re truly an illogical fool.
Here’s a couple of actual facts for you; rape and birth control failures do not absolve people of their post sexual activity personal responsibilities, what they do after sexual activity is a CHOICE and choices have consequences.
You are free to have whatever opinion you want about me, and I about you.
“in fact it’s the core problem”
That’s an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that you should learn to discern better between facts and opinions.
Anonymous wrote, “You are free to have whatever opinion you want about me, and I about you. “in fact it’s the core problem” That’s an opinion, not a fact.”
It takes a very special kind of biased stupid to think that personal responsibility is not the core problem encompassing the abortions and it’s being willfully ignored by pro-abortion activists? It is literally self-evident that the core problem is personal responsibility.
Anonymous wrote, “My opinion is that you should learn to discern better between facts and opinions.”
Ditto.
Before discerning better between facts and opinion, when dealing with you, one must first learn the difference between lies and deception.
Anonymous wrote, “Before discerning better between facts and opinion, when dealing with you, one must first learn the difference between lies and deception.”
Since there are two Anonymous commenters in this sub-thread so I really have no idea which Anonymous commenter wrote that apparently self-incriminating comment or who the comment was directed towards so I’ll just ignore it.
Of the millions of abortions, how many were due to those problems?
Do we get rid of cars because of accidents?
Do we stop swimming because sometimes people drown?
ATS has an outlier for everything political and if he doesn’t have an outlier, he makes one up.
As I understand it, the argument is that a ban on abortion forces the pregnant woman to serve the fetus and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Unless a woman is forcibly impregnated in a state with abortion restrictions, a pregnant woman has voluntarily engaged in an act knowing it might result in pregnancy, and she knew or should have known that the state imposed restrictions on abortion. Therefore, it is not credible to argue that the law imposes involuntary servitude upon her by restricting abortion. The woman is not being treated like a slave; quite the contrary, it is the fetus that would be treated like a slave if abortion is unrestrained because the fetus is deemed not to be a person and, therefore, not entitled to the protections of the law.
Correct. “Assumption of risk”. She knew, or should have known, what she was getting into. Or vice versa.
PudnHead,
I had similar thoughts.
In this day and age, there are a lot of options for birth control and programs to get birth control to those low income households.
Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
Walking across buildings on a tightrope is not consent to dying.
In both actions people can recognize the risks.
Consent to sex is not consent to kill either, but you keep pretending you make the rules.
You sickko. Go and run and hide with your like minded sickkos and pretend what you espouse isn’t the result of psychotic degeneracy.
Left Wing Social Justice Judge out of District of Columbia, most likely a follower or a listner to the Left Wing Radical Profeesor/Legal expert Lawerence Tribe of Harvard. The Left never quits always trying but in the end they Lose. This time this Judge’s ideas will fail in the end.
This is an absurd contention. Give it NO air, exactly what the abortionists do to the child.
Silly me. I’ve been lectured, District Courts are bound by SCOTUS rulings. I’ve been lectured that SCOTUS rulings ARE the Constitution.
I’d like to see that theory based on the preamble. I could use another good laugh. I appreciate your posts. Thank you.
Every so often the curtain is pulled back and you can see the imbeciles that rule us. This is one of those moments.
WOW, talk about a complete bastardization of the law to fit ones twisted view of the world while completely denying the unborn human being the innate human right to life.
Imagine if you will a higher order thinking culture that has all the modern technological and medical advancements that the planet has to offer at its fingertips and that culture chooses to freely give some individuals the ultimate legal power to permanently remove defenseless human beings from their lives because they are “unwanted” and the removal method of choice is extermination.
We have officially entered The Twilight Zone
I wish republicans spent the same amount of time shrinking federal government as fighting abortion. I don’t want to see abortion, but I don’t want to be throwing women in jail for having an abortion in the first 4 months either! Everyone should want a baby when they are having one!
But raising a child is a HARD commitment, and giving birth is a difficult undertaking.
BTW every child born today owes $100,000 of Federal Debt!
Having and raising a kid has been going on a long time, and in a 1st world nation is easier than ever.
Being a good person is VERY HARD. Being a good person and being a democrat is damned near impossible.