It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude
The ERA is good start. But, no. There is no need for a constitutional amendment to codify the right to reproductive choice. It's already implied in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments.
Before Dobbs, there was no need to expand the standards Roe set. Now, reproductive rights activists have to start all over again. They have to explain to a handful of bias Supreme Court Justices why a pregnant woman's life is just as valuable the stuff you keep on the "hearth". That everyone's religion is valid, that medical records are not the government's business, that pregnant women's right to interstate travel can't constitutionally be revoked. That forcing a 10 year old to carry and deliver her rapist's offspring, only to have to give it up is a 13th Amendment violation. Stuff like that.
You have yet to bring anything to the table that makes your case for that