4 ms·
My understanding is the underlying argument is ultimately about fetal personhood and a national ban would be about protecting constitutional rights of the unbor
by gonehome 4y ago
My understanding is the underlying argument is ultimately about fetal personhood and a national ban would be about protecting constitutional rights of the unborn (and having disputes about that rise to the level of SCOTUS for a ruling).
That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
- usrn 4y agoI'm part way through it and while it mentions recognition of fetal personhood in the past it only seems to use that to establish that there's no precedent for this idea of a right to abortion.
- gonehome 4y agoFor clarity I’m not talking about the text of this opinion, but the larger argument that’s happening outside of it. I think you’re probably accurate about this decision and its consequences in the short term, but I thought you were missing why this could have a bigger effect in the long term.
- gonehome 4y agoOutside of the edit window, but this has some of the context I’m talking about: https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q https://apple.news/AUTfqLmWMSnC7Rz1M7QpH-Q