Sure, you would.
At issue are restrictions both justified as protecting women's health and, apparently, admitted to be medically pointless.
Abortion foes contend that a law is not an undue burden unless it takes a major toll on abortion access, while abortion rights advocates argue that a law is an undue burden if it serves no actual medical purpose.
Which argument prevails could make the difference between a tidal wave of anti-abortion bills and a trickle.
Conservative state lawmakers have enacted hundreds of new abortion restrictions in the past five years that mainstream medical organizations say carry no real health benefits.
On the other hand, Roe was probably the most outrageous and egregious lie ever told by that junta of liars, the US Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment