Except I never said that, it's a false equivalency on several of the most basic levels, etc etc...pretty much par for the indoctrinated course with these types of responses.
You seem to only know to parrot what you've been told to say and believe
1. Fair enough if you've never said it.
2. It's not a false equivalency when the common rallying cry is My BoDY mY cHoIcE. People were literally castigated and socially/economically sidelined for wanting autonomy over their decision not to inject a foreign substance into their body that was manufactured by pharmaceutical companies that have spent decades lying to their consumers and also ensured protection via not being able to be sued in case there were catastrophic side effects.
3. The level of projection in terms of "parrot" is what it is, but it also has no basis.
I do appreciate the kind words otherwise, sincerely.
Anyway, since Del's on a roll,
q: what's the difference between a priest and a rabbi?
a: a rabbi cuts it off and a priest sucks it off.
It's not an unreasonable approach to take me onto your specialist battleground and invite me to battle on your terms, but I'm not going to do that because quite obviously I don't have the legal education to do so. As a result, I have no idea whether what you say is correct or not.
What I will say though is that Roe v Wade is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court, it's the law of the land, and it clearly holds that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Would you agree?
With the exception of being important in terms of precedent, all of this is absolutely true.
Settled precedent can be wrong. Example; I'd say a solid 80 to 90 percent of this board wishes DC vs. Heller was overturned and would have no issue with settled precedent being upended. Korematsu was settled precedent, Brown v. Board of Ed, etc. With that in mind, I do find the kvetching about precedent to be just that. No one has any issue overturning precedent they don't agree, no matter what they say in their confirmation hearings. Using guns as an example again, you'd have to be a freaking moron on the right to ever think Sotomayor or Breyer would ever not backflip at the chance to overturn Heller no matter what they said.
About ten or eleven years ago, Democrats had a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate and never codified via legislation a woman's right to an abortion. My guess is that's probably because they knew the battle between totally satiating the AbOrTiOn On DeMaNd AnD wItHoUt aPoLoGy crowd and remaining in the good graces of the American electorate would've been impossible. Plenty of people (myself included, and for that matter most of the European nations that the left wants to follow on issues like guns, taxes, social safety net, etc.) believe in a temporal element towards the procedure in cases where it's
elective i.e. where mom's health isn't in question or the child wasn't a product of rape or incest. As an example, the legislation set to go forth in Mississippi and Missouri is insane in terms of their respective restrictiveness.
I feel the same way about Obergefell quite honestly, but also seriously would struggle (if/when this ever happened which I don't think it will), with a Supreme Court that would provide the logic that a proscription on same sex marriage would not be violative of the equal protection clause and would survive a strict scrutiny test because the state's compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman overpowers the deprivation of same sex couples from the practice (and all of the economic and social benefits that come with being married), especially in a country with a divorce rate over 50%. So if that ever happens, please feel free to refer back to this comment and feel free to call me a hypocrite if I ever try to justify it (I won't).
Sorry to disappoint those that expect me to just "parrot" the common pro-life talking points here, but I think a fair reading of my post history would show where I've always landed on this. Admittedly I do find some of the pro-choice arguments that rely on identity politics ("no uterus no opinion") to be freaking absurd, and you'd think a lesson would be learned considering one of the 6 signing off on this majority opinion in fact has a uterus.
What I think is going to be very interesting is whether or not States that try to ban its citizens from going out of State to undergo what is absolutely a medical procedure find themselves violative of either the interstate or dormant commerce clause. I would say they are.
I am going to hold the "company line" here to close it out and say that Sotomayor's dissent in the football coach prayer case was completely ridiculous and would've never been written if say, a football coach in a heavily Muslim area (say the suburbs of Michigan) wanted to lead a post-game prayer of the Islamic faith. And to that end, I hope someone does, just to put to bed some of the hypotheticals I've been seeing from the worst ends of twitter today.
