3 ms·

That's a really good analysis but I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly

That's a really good analysis but I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution, nor in any federal statute. You may have also noticed that a Miranda ruling came down that also clarified that a "Miranda warning" is not a right granted under the constitution, or in federal law. I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. I only hope that the people realize that because of the Roe decision, it's back to the policymakers to pass law, not for the court to create it.

mcphage 4y ago
> I look at it from another angle that you might consider. With Roe, the Supreme Court granted "rights" that were not explicitly in the constitution That's an important point, I wonder if there should be an amendment to the constitution stating that "just because we didn't mention a right, doesn't mean you don't have it". It seems important, maybe we should give it a low amendment number. I'd say top 10 at least, are there any numbers not being used? Hmm, 9 seems to be free I guess?
ModernMech 4y ago
> I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. Let me guess, you’re male and don’t have any women in your life who would have their life threatened by this ruling. If not, how do you explain to them you support this decision which jeopardizes their lives and relegates them to second-class citizenship?