I will not repeat the insulting post of our teenage global moderator .
I imagine he will return the favor, and not repeat your insult.
Many liberals have critiqued Roe, with the hope of strengthening its protections. Casey v PP was one opportunity to do so. Dobbs v Jackson WHO could have been another, had the majority rejected the State of Mississippi attempt to replace the science on viability with its own science fiction. The Court could have further refined the understanding of viability as a defining feature of legal personhood, and how the mother's rights as a person are weighted, but chose instead to discard all that and reference 19th century concepts like "quickening" - yes, I read the syllabus. As if ancient "tradition" could possibly be a roadmap in thorny bioethical problems. Or determining the rights of women. Or people of color. Or LGBT. We have all seen how well the prior centuries have done with those other rights.
Nothing like missing the point.
How predictable.
BTW, just for starters, Abortion until Roe was in the hands of the people who for our entire existence as a country debated and argued over viability, et al.
Roe wiped all that away by replacing the people s voice with that of nine Justices.
As I posted earlier that put Roe on a parallel course to oblivion with the Dred Scott debacle.
Thankfully this one the Court corrected, reversing itself.
It is telling the minority dissenters could not even muster a defense of STARE DECISIS.since ROE was so poorly written.
Poll
