He had a good question, but the answer was nonsensical.
There is no "right" to have an abortion. That's just word soup made up over the years by elves in the media. The courts never ruled on it.
Instead, courts made a ridiculous ruling "based around" the 4th and 9th amendment stating that the government had no authority to breach the privacy of a citizen in medical affairs. Look how well that goes over outside abortion.
The rulings also always dodged every argument about viability and about life. Under every other interpretation of the law, abortion would be counted as murder after viability is reached.
Roe v. Wade no matter how you look at it was an awful ruling that should be appealed.
It's interesting. He made the point that there are two interests involved, the fetus and the mother. She then replied that you can't limit the rights of a woman, completely ignoring that he just brought up the rights of the fetus as well.
If that's the best argument they have then I look forward to seeing it struck down.
He had a good question, but the answer was nonsensical.
There is no "right" to have an abortion. That's just word soup made up over the years by elves in the media. The courts never ruled on it.
Instead, courts made a ridiculous ruling "based around" the 4th and 9th amendment stating that the government had no authority to breach the privacy of a citizen in medical affairs. Look how well that goes over outside abortion.
The rulings also always dodged every argument about viability and about life. Under every other interpretation of the law, abortion would be counted as murder after viability is reached.
Roe v. Wade no matter how you look at it was an awful ruling that should be appealed.
It's interesting. He made the point that there are two interests involved, the fetus and the mother. She then replied that you can't limit the rights of a woman, completely ignoring that he just brought up the rights of the fetus as well.
If that's the best argument they have then I look forward to seeing it struck down.