- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
I would suggest that that is your interpretation....Doesn't make it fact. In fact the law has language in it directly opposing this view, but I am not a lawyer, and it would have to be determined through the court system....Do you know if challenges have been brought over this law? If so, what is the current status in its swim up the stream toward the SC?
The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.
Irrelevant. The UVVA passed AFTER Roe No? So unless that law has been settled by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional then there is a real dichotomy in the laws concerning this question of person hood in utereo no?
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.
The right to privacy is here to stay.
So, is it that the SCOTUS never can make a mistake, and reverse itself, or is it only selective in what you think should be the case? For instance, Do you also believe that the ruling on Dred Scott is still in force? Or was that overturned by the SCOTUS from its original ruling in the matter?