24 Jun 2022 2:09 pm
It's simply your erroneous opinion that the State has no interest because you simply don't believe it's a life that's being killed. For those who do, it's CERTAINLY a duty of all legislators who believe likewise that they are protecting the lives of innocents in the womb, in which they DO have standing. And it's ONLY a restriction on those women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex because they have too cavalier an attitude regarding that life, most of which I believe is because they know the government will pay for their carelessness. And that's simply not acceptable and the current Supreme Court agreed by a vote of 6-3.Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑ Again, being a **** sockpuppet, you evade the point.
This is a medical matter involving the only direct stakeholder and the advisor of her choice.
It is not a matter in which the State holds an interest. It lacks standing.
Your constitutional wanking is a pretext to restrict a woman's choice.
Now will come the likely screeching for Democrats to call to pack the court with up to 5 more justices (that a demented Alzheimer's patient will choose) in order to overwhelm the current majority decision. The problem for Dems doing that would be that such confirmation hearings for that many will take longer than the remaining 6 months before the new Republican majority in Congress will be seated. And at that time, they can refuse to affirm ANY of the new liberal picks that Biden would make, or even choose to pack it further in 2025, giving Trump the second opportunity to add 3 or 4 more after he or another Republican wins takes the presidency back. It probably won't happen that way, but it sure would be fun watching the fur fly if Trump were to have appointed 6 or more of his own conservative picks!