OT Roe V Wade In Trouble

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Chris Craig

(Blazersland) I'm Your Huckleberry, Beardo
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
60,093
Likes
60,602
Points
113
https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-awaited-moment-staunch-roe-005740859.html

WASHINGTON - Judge Clarence Thomas said at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 that he hadn't given that much thought to whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.

But Justice Clarence Thomas took only months to reach a conclusion: the landmark 1973 ruling guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion should be discarded.

"The power of a woman to abort her unborn child" is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, said a dissenting opinion from four members of the court, including Thomas.

Thus began three decades of official Thomas opposition to the notion of a constitutionally protected right to abortion.

It will reach its zenith Wednesday, when Thomas and the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will consider a restrictive Mississippi abortion law that opponents and advocates alike agree is almost impossible to square with Roe and the precedents that have flowed from it.


The review coincides as well with something of a high-water mark for the 73-year-old Thomas, now the court's longest-serving member. He sits on a court with more justices who think like him than at any other point in his career.

These days, his colleagues offer unprecedented deference. After years of not asking questions at oral arguments, Thomas this term has asked the first question in every hearing. That is because no one jumps in until he has finished his low-key inquiries.

His seniority on the court means that he decides who writes the court's opinion when he is in the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. is on the losing side. That is a bit more commonplace now as the court has grown more conservative. With five justices to his right, Roberts's vote is no longer always key.

Thomas's influence has grown outside the courtroom as well. His former clerks - there are more than 125 of his "kids," as Thomas calls them - held many high-ranking positions in the Trump administration, including for a time the role of the administration's top lawyer at the Supreme Court. Ten have lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary.

One of those former clerks, recently hired Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, will be arguing the case for the state's law, which prohibits almost all abortions after 15 weeks, months earlier than the court's current abortion precedents allow.

If the court reaches the question of whether Roe should be overturned, Stewart will not have to worry about at least one vote.

"Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion in 2020. The case concerned restrictions on abortion clinics and the doctors who perform the procedure, whom Thomas repeatedly referred to as "abortionists."

"The Constitution does not constrain the States' ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion," he added.


It is one of many times Thomas has written on the subject, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted last month when he gave the keynote speech for a celebration of Thomas's 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Take his jurisprudence on unborn life," McConnell said at the conclusion of a day-long retrospective of his Supreme Court tenure sponsored by conservative groups.

"Every time without fail, Justice Thomas writes a separate, concise opinion to cut through the 50-year tangle of made-up tests and shifting standards and calmly reminds everybody that the whole house of cards lacks a constitutional foundation," McConnell said.

Thomas has written that Roe cannot be sustained because the Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion. He has complained that the court bends its own rules and procedures to protect Roe and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the right and was the decision Thomas objected to in his first term on the court.

In 2019, he related abortion to eugenics, praising an Indiana law that would have made it illegal for someone to perform an abortion because of the fetus's race, sex, disability or diagnosis of Down syndrome.

"Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die," Thomas wrote.

"Put differently, this law and other laws like it promote a state's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics."

While the rest of the court wanted additional lower courts to weigh in on similar laws in other states, Thomas warned: "Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever."

"In terms of abortion, Justice Thomas is the tip of the spear," said Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer who frequently argues before the court and was a founder of SCOTUSblog, which closely chronicles the court's every move. "He is a driving force for overruling Roe v. Wade. And that position will make a decision that doesn't go so far and instead cuts back on Roe seem pretty modest."

If other justices say the court's precedents must be respected and overturned in the rarest of occasions, Thomas is an exception the other way.

"In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous - i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text - the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent," he wrote in 2019.

As a result, Thomas is the court's most prolific justice when it comes to writing solo opinions that call for reconsidering the court's precedents.

At the symposium on Thomas's jurisprudence, Notre Dame law professor Nicole Stelle Garnett said her fellow Thomas clerks became familiar with it.

"Justice Thomas has since the beginning had a practice of saying, 'In an appropriate case, I'd reconsider all of American law,' " Garnett said, to laughter.

Sometimes, the justice's persistence pays off, now that the court's membership has changed. He has complained for years that the court has not taken up challenges of state and local gun control laws that have been upheld despite the court's 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to gun ownership in the home for self-defense.

The newly constituted court - with three members chosen by President Donald Trump - agreed and heard arguments last month about the right to carry a weapon outside the home.

His call to reexamine the court's landmark press protection ruling New York Times v. Sullivan is still a minority position, but he has been joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Other once lonely positions may attract new support.

In an evaluation of Thomas for NPR at the 20-year mark, Goldstein said Thomas's solo opinions were like "planting flowers in a garden that he thinks are going to bloom a long time from now. And whether that's going to happen is going to depend on the court's membership.".

Ten years later, "I think that Justice Thomas's biggest and boldest constitutional theories are still a long way from being adopted," Goldstein said. "You can see similar themes in newer decisions - such as rules lowering the bar separating church and state. But the biggest effect of his bold thinking so far has to make other very conservative views seem essentially mainstream."

Thomas's idiosyncratic views and his resistance to compromise still make him the justice most likely to write a solo opinion. In the term completed last summer, he was in the majority 81 percent of the time - the lowest of all six conservatives and just ahead of the liberal justices.

Thomas has a growing conservative fan base outside of the court - and still also faces stout liberal opposition. His wife Virginia Thomas's conservative activism and closeness with the Trump administration remains a sore point.

Earlier this year, she apologized to Thomas's clerks for a rift that developed among them after her election advocacy of Trump and endorsement of the Jan. 6 rally in the District of Columbia that resulted in violence and death at the U.S. Capitol.

And Thomas's controversial confirmation, almost derailed because of sexual harassment charges by Anita Hill, is hardly forgotten.

"I still believe Anita Hill," protesters yelled this fall before Thomas gave a speech at the University of Notre Dame.

But these days, Thomas is able to shrug it off.

At the event marking three decades on the court, Thomas said he was celebrating "not because of me but because of you all and what we're trying to defend in this great country."

"I appreciate the senators who voted for me, all 52 of them," Thomas said, as the crowd began to laugh. "Hey, all you need is 50."
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-awaited-moment-staunch-roe-005740859.html

WASHINGTON - Judge Clarence Thomas said at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 that he hadn't given that much thought to whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.

But Justice Clarence Thomas took only months to reach a conclusion: the landmark 1973 ruling guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion should be discarded.

"The power of a woman to abort her unborn child" is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, said a dissenting opinion from four members of the court, including Thomas.

Thus began three decades of official Thomas opposition to the notion of a constitutionally protected right to abortion.

It will reach its zenith Wednesday, when Thomas and the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will consider a restrictive Mississippi abortion law that opponents and advocates alike agree is almost impossible to square with Roe and the precedents that have flowed from it.


The review coincides as well with something of a high-water mark for the 73-year-old Thomas, now the court's longest-serving member. He sits on a court with more justices who think like him than at any other point in his career.

These days, his colleagues offer unprecedented deference. After years of not asking questions at oral arguments, Thomas this term has asked the first question in every hearing. That is because no one jumps in until he has finished his low-key inquiries.

His seniority on the court means that he decides who writes the court's opinion when he is in the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. is on the losing side. That is a bit more commonplace now as the court has grown more conservative. With five justices to his right, Roberts's vote is no longer always key.

Thomas's influence has grown outside the courtroom as well. His former clerks - there are more than 125 of his "kids," as Thomas calls them - held many high-ranking positions in the Trump administration, including for a time the role of the administration's top lawyer at the Supreme Court. Ten have lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary.

One of those former clerks, recently hired Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, will be arguing the case for the state's law, which prohibits almost all abortions after 15 weeks, months earlier than the court's current abortion precedents allow.

If the court reaches the question of whether Roe should be overturned, Stewart will not have to worry about at least one vote.

"Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion in 2020. The case concerned restrictions on abortion clinics and the doctors who perform the procedure, whom Thomas repeatedly referred to as "abortionists."

"The Constitution does not constrain the States' ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion," he added.


It is one of many times Thomas has written on the subject, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted last month when he gave the keynote speech for a celebration of Thomas's 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Take his jurisprudence on unborn life," McConnell said at the conclusion of a day-long retrospective of his Supreme Court tenure sponsored by conservative groups.

"Every time without fail, Justice Thomas writes a separate, concise opinion to cut through the 50-year tangle of made-up tests and shifting standards and calmly reminds everybody that the whole house of cards lacks a constitutional foundation," McConnell said.

Thomas has written that Roe cannot be sustained because the Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion. He has complained that the court bends its own rules and procedures to protect Roe and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the right and was the decision Thomas objected to in his first term on the court.

In 2019, he related abortion to eugenics, praising an Indiana law that would have made it illegal for someone to perform an abortion because of the fetus's race, sex, disability or diagnosis of Down syndrome.

"Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die," Thomas wrote.

"Put differently, this law and other laws like it promote a state's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics."

While the rest of the court wanted additional lower courts to weigh in on similar laws in other states, Thomas warned: "Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever."

"In terms of abortion, Justice Thomas is the tip of the spear," said Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer who frequently argues before the court and was a founder of SCOTUSblog, which closely chronicles the court's every move. "He is a driving force for overruling Roe v. Wade. And that position will make a decision that doesn't go so far and instead cuts back on Roe seem pretty modest."

If other justices say the court's precedents must be respected and overturned in the rarest of occasions, Thomas is an exception the other way.

"In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous - i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text - the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent," he wrote in 2019.

As a result, Thomas is the court's most prolific justice when it comes to writing solo opinions that call for reconsidering the court's precedents.

At the symposium on Thomas's jurisprudence, Notre Dame law professor Nicole Stelle Garnett said her fellow Thomas clerks became familiar with it.

"Justice Thomas has since the beginning had a practice of saying, 'In an appropriate case, I'd reconsider all of American law,' " Garnett said, to laughter.

Sometimes, the justice's persistence pays off, now that the court's membership has changed. He has complained for years that the court has not taken up challenges of state and local gun control laws that have been upheld despite the court's 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to gun ownership in the home for self-defense.

The newly constituted court - with three members chosen by President Donald Trump - agreed and heard arguments last month about the right to carry a weapon outside the home.

His call to reexamine the court's landmark press protection ruling New York Times v. Sullivan is still a minority position, but he has been joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Other once lonely positions may attract new support.

In an evaluation of Thomas for NPR at the 20-year mark, Goldstein said Thomas's solo opinions were like "planting flowers in a garden that he thinks are going to bloom a long time from now. And whether that's going to happen is going to depend on the court's membership.".

Ten years later, "I think that Justice Thomas's biggest and boldest constitutional theories are still a long way from being adopted," Goldstein said. "You can see similar themes in newer decisions - such as rules lowering the bar separating church and state. But the biggest effect of his bold thinking so far has to make other very conservative views seem essentially mainstream."

Thomas's idiosyncratic views and his resistance to compromise still make him the justice most likely to write a solo opinion. In the term completed last summer, he was in the majority 81 percent of the time - the lowest of all six conservatives and just ahead of the liberal justices.

Thomas has a growing conservative fan base outside of the court - and still also faces stout liberal opposition. His wife Virginia Thomas's conservative activism and closeness with the Trump administration remains a sore point.

Earlier this year, she apologized to Thomas's clerks for a rift that developed among them after her election advocacy of Trump and endorsement of the Jan. 6 rally in the District of Columbia that resulted in violence and death at the U.S. Capitol.

And Thomas's controversial confirmation, almost derailed because of sexual harassment charges by Anita Hill, is hardly forgotten.

"I still believe Anita Hill," protesters yelled this fall before Thomas gave a speech at the University of Notre Dame.

But these days, Thomas is able to shrug it off.

At the event marking three decades on the court, Thomas said he was celebrating "not because of me but because of you all and what we're trying to defend in this great country."

"I appreciate the senators who voted for me, all 52 of them," Thomas said, as the crowd began to laugh. "Hey, all you need is 50."
The governor of Mississippi disagrees with this statement. He believes the new Mississippi law might work under Roe v Wade.
 
The governor of Mississippi disagrees with this statement. He believes the new Mississippi law might work under Roe v Wade.

But, a conservative supreme court won't see it that way.

A SC with a majority of conservatives including two men who have sexually harassed/assaulted women want to take a women's rights away to her body. It doesn't seem they will be stopped.
 
...would love to hear conservatives view on this mindfuck of a situation where out one side of their face they are screaming about "medical freedoms" in regards to choosing not to get vaccinated vs. the other side of their face screaming that "medical freedom" does not apply to women here in regards to choosing to have an abortion :dunno:
 
Clarence Thomas lied his ass off. If he really had no opinion on abortion, he was arguably the only American over age 12 who could say that. And he voted against reproductive rights and women's rights generally on every case.

...and fwiw, he was indirectly responsible for the planning of the infamous January 6th "Stop the Steal" rally :sigh: this guys seems to have some pretty nefarious views outside of the court as well.
 
...would love to hear conservatives view on this mindfuck of a situation where out one side of their face they are screaming about "medical freedoms" in regards to choosing not to get vaccinated vs. the other side of their face screaming that "medical freedom" does not apply to women here in regards to choosing to have an abortion :dunno:
Here's what I believe. This is a secular matter. Also, adults in their right mind should be able to reach whatever decision does not affect others and it's not our business to interfere. If she is judged it will be by her maker not us.

The life she aborts must be viable for her to be prevented from stopping it. I believe viability begins somewhere around the start of the sixth month of a pregnancy. There has to be a compromise and this seems as fair as you can get.
 
...would love to hear conservatives view on this mindfuck of a situation where out one side of their face they are screaming about "medical freedoms" in regards to choosing not to get vaccinated vs. the other side of their face screaming that "medical freedom" does not apply to women here in regards to choosing to have an abortion :dunno:

waves hand…

Im personally against abortion.
However, I will vote against restrictive abortion laws, because i do not feel i have the right to make that decision for someone else.

not all us conservatives are the same. ;)
 
Fine. Women can try Lysistrata approach.

Trouble with six month ban is late term abortions are done in emergencies. Shit happens. Sometimes shit happens late in pregnancy. No woman wants to wait around in order to have a late term abortion. Either a crisis in her health, severe fetal abnormality not detected earlier, or some other crisis. How many if you want to tell the woman whose fetus had no brain that she had to give birth and care for the offspring for life?
 
generically, sure. But teaching it that way tends to lead to higher pregnancy rates over preaching safe sex with condoms.

green font. Like thats a realistic answer… abstinence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
waves hand…

Im personally against abortion.
However, I will vote against restrictive abortion laws, because i do not feel i have the right to make that decision for someone else.

not all us conservatives are the same. ;)
I know of a lady whose son was diagnosed with lissencephaly at birth. She's been caring for him for 16 years (well past the normal life expectancy). Her life is extraordinarily difficult having to care for him as well as provide for her family. Said she would've still given birth to him if she could do it all over again.
Her choice ans I'll stand by her since she's an adult in her right mind. I would imagine that her maker will be kind to her.
 
Yes, some people choose to carry problem pregnancies. Operative word is choose. In some cases it's not a child with disabilities, it's a child with no abilities. I mentioned case in another thread of a fetus that had absolutely no brain activity at all, and the life of a woman whose child was born with the condition. Forty seven years caring for a body with no brain. After a right to lifer murdered Dr. George Tiller, a film was made about his patients who had late abortions and why.
There are not loads of people seeking to adopt a child with no brain, or who can never move.
What not, as Dr. Tiller said, trust women? I know it's hard to believe but women really aren't stupid and a woman really is the one most qualified to decide her pregnancy. Not a state legislator, a senator, a judge, or a screaming picketer outside a clinic.
 
Yes, some people choose to carry problem pregnancies. Operative word is choose. In some cases it's not a child with disabilities, it's a child with no abilities. I mentioned case in another thread of a fetus that had absolutely no brain activity at all, and the life of a woman whose child was born with the condition. Forty seven years caring for a body with no brain. After a right to lifer murdered Dr. George Tiller, a film was made about his patients who had late abortions and why.
There are not loads of people seeking to adopt a child with no brain, or who can never move.
What not, as Dr. Tiller said, trust women? I know it's hard to believe but women really aren't stupid and a woman really is the one most qualified to decide her pregnancy. Not a state legislator, a senator, a judge, or a screaming picketer outside a clinic.
It would seem to be insane to carry a child to term that is brain dead. But as a fully functioning adult it's her choice. What if someone told me I had no right to death with dignity, I'd break his nose in an instant. Nobody's gonna tell me what to do unless it affects someone else. Your right to extend your fist ends where my nose begins.
 
I have a simple suggestion: anybody who wants to outlaw abortion should be required to sign up as a living organ doner. Fair is fair. If her uterus is government property, so is your lung/heart/kidney. If the government can decide a fetus is more important than a woman, they can decide that rich CEO's life is worth more than yours.
 
Previous occupant of White House, being totally unqualified for the job, had a propensity for appointing unqualified people to various posts, starting with his family members. He appointed as head of Office of Refugee Resettlement a white male with no refugee experience, a lifelong far right activist working to outlaw all abortions and all birth control. He oversaw facilities where unaccompanied minors were held, including teen and preteen girls. He demanded staff send him information on every girl's menstrual cycle. He kept a spreadsheet listing all their names and dates of menstruation, including a column with header "Raped, yes/no". The point was to discover which of them might be pregnant in order to ensure they stayed pregnant regardless of their wishes.

One 17 year old who was pregnant wanted an abortion. The bounty hunter law had not been passed but Texas still had a lot of hoops for women to jump through. A private organization assisted her. Funds were raised from private individuals to pay for the procedure. Individuals arranged transportation. But head dude physically blocked her leaving the detention center to go to the clinic. They were detainees, not prisoners, and were allowed to leave for medical appointments. In fact he had forced this young woman to go to an anti abortion group in order to sit through a lecture.

ACLU filed suit. The judges eviscerated attorney for the government. He tried to say that the government was being asked to facilitate her abortion when all they had to do was not physically prevent her leaving for a few hours. The judge ruled for her. A temporary glitch occurred when an appeal's court judge who had a problematic history of abusing women issued a stay so she could have more time to think it over. His ruling was so flawed his own court promptly overturned it. She was already in second trimester and more time was what she did not have. So the young woman did get her abortion.

The government attorney who argued for forcing her to give birth is now Solicitor General in Mississippi. The one who went before the Supreme Court yesterday to argue that every woman must be forced to give birth against her will. The judge who issued the stay was rewarded with an appointment to the US Supreme Court. At his confirmation hearing when challenged on abusing women he threw a temper tantrum, cried about what a victim he was, and vowed to use his position on the Court to get revenge on those who doubted him. That alone should have disqualified him but instead he became part of the Trump/McConnell Court.
 
Meanwhile, yesterday. Alito said fetuses had the right to live even if not viable. Women not so much. The sexual harasser claimed that there were no rights that meant taking a life. He meant fertilized egg, not woman. In previous cases, the Supreme Court ruled that minors and the developmentally disabled could not be executed. Thomas was dissenter in those decisions. No right to life for born people. The rapist gleefully listed cases that the Court had overturned in the past. Lawyer for women pointed out that never before had the Court granted a right and then taken it away. The balls and strikes institutionalist tried to find a compromise that would restrict women but leave us a few rights under predetermined circumstances but the rest of the Trump/McConnell court wasn't having it. Coathanger argued that forced pregnancy was no big deal since every state has a safe harbor law, that allows parents of newborns to leave infants they can't care for at hospitals, houses of worship or fire stations without penalty. So the raped 12 year old, the woman battling breast cancer, the single mother working a minimum wage job with no health benefits or sick leave can just go through pregnancy and birth, no sweat, then just drop off baby at firehouse. No trouble at all.

Sonia Sotomayor was on a roll. She pointed out to forced birth attorney that philosophers have debated where life begins forever with no agreement. She asked if there was anything other than his religious beliefs to justify fertilized egg is a person view. He didn't answer. She also asked him if there was any time when the woman's life should enter the calculation. He didn't answer that either.

Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan all pointed out that the court was in danger of being seen as no different than a state legislature where laws are decided based on personal views only. Kagan pointed out nothing has changed since 1973 except the composition of the court. Sometimes called conservative, the Trump/McConnell court is actually radically reactionary. They are not conserving anything.

But as the Carole King song goes, you can't talk to a man when he don't want to understand.

Also raised as concern was that if precedent is set to overturn previously granted right it could be extended. Court gutted Voting Rights act but didn't go out and say Black people have no right to vote. Already Mississippi legislature is talking about asking the Trump/McConnell Court to overturn marriage equality.
 
Michele Goodwin is a professor at UC Irvine law school. She was raised upscale, private school, violin and ballet lessons. Her father never missed parent teacher conference or school activity.
The first time he raped her was her 10th birthday. Not the last. Trauma caused severe physiological symptoms. When she got pregnant he took her for an abortion and told doctor she was wayward girl misbehaving with boyfriend. Doctor, male, clucked tongue over her bad behavior. At 15 she ran away with $10 in her pocket.
Two things she never regretted, running away and having abortion.
She wrote New York Times column, My Father Raped Me. Abortion Saved My Life.

Trump/McConnell court just fine with little girls being raped.
Probably figure they were asking for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Looking bad for the pro-abortion crowd. Science has since proven so many things about life begins at the moment of conception... that were supposedly unknown when RvW was decided. It's becoming apparent that nothing else was of legal value in supporting the flawed decision. And Sotomayor is embarrassing herself with her ignorance of basic scientific advancements and weak grasp of Constitutional law.
 
An unborn child is not an internal organ of it's mother. He/she is a person.

This is the sort of ignorance and denial that destroys any credibility for pro-abortionists.
 
Another glaringly unavoidable hypocrisy of pro-abortionists is that they are overwhelmingly supporters of forced injections of the unsafe, unapproved experimental mRNA shots, which completely destroys their previous "excuse" of MY BODY MY CHOICE.

They have no Constitutional, legal or moral arguments left.
 
Another glaringly unavoidable hypocrisy of pro-abortionists is that they are overwhelmingly supporters of forced injections of the unsafe, unapproved experimental mRNA shots, which completely destroys their previous "excuse" of MY BODY MY CHOICE.

They have no Constitutional, legal or moral arguments left.
who forced you to get injected? right.............I chose to get vaccinated...choices .....as to the constitution....your buddies threw that in the toilet on Jan 6th....no moral, ethical or constitutional excuse from your camp can cover up that atrocity....you should adopt disabled babies and raise them in Lapine...walk the walk...get back to us when you've started your orphanage for crack babies
 
Mississippi governor was on CNN this morning. He was asked about women who would be injured or killed if abortion is outlawed. He, as is usual with woman haters, ignored the question and talked about fertilized eggs
Mississippi is the poorest state in the country. It is last in health care. It has highest maternal and infant mortality in the country. Rate for Black women three times higher than for white women.
It's about controlling women. Not life.
 
An unborn child is not an internal organ of it's mother. He/she is a person.

This is the sort of ignorance and denial that destroys any credibility for pro-abortionists.
I disagree. At least 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway. He/she isn't a person until it can be taken out and survive on it's own or until the host has decided it's a person.
 
Back
Top