What am I missing with regard to SCOTUS roe v wade thing?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

why wouldn't someone do that? It seems most of the killers are giddy about getting the right to slaughter kids back. Since it was the SCOTUS that shot this down, wouldn't a COTUS amendment be the way to go? Folks here are pissing and moaning about the states having the ball.

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.

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.

implied? perhaps imagined. You have yet to bring anything to the table that makes your case for that. Best you can do is claim the mother has the right to shoot the baby due to the 2nd.

a reply to: network dude

You have yet to bring anything to the table that makes your case for that

BS. Your insincere and disingenuous arguments are betraying your inner troll. I'm done with you and your line of trollery.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yea, once you pretend you know more than the 9 justices on the SCOTUS, I think your comedy level has peaked. It's all downhill from here.