INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
*Ally* said:
yes, there is an exemption which would allow the procedures at issue to be performed if the life of the mother was in danger. HOWEVER, there is no exemption for the "health" of the mother- and every other Supreme Court decision regarding abortion has explicitly stated that both the life AND the health of the mother must be protected. in this regard, yesterday's decision completely contradicts Supreme Court precedent.
it's a scary to me that our government has decided that the health of a pregnant woman is no longer something that needs to be valued....
Define "health."
How effective would public smoking bans be if exemptions for the smokers "health" existed and "health" was so broadly defined as to include "nervousness", "lack of energy", or "physical symptoms of nicotine withdraw."
Answer is they would be less effective and they certainly wouldn't be enforceable.
I'm being honest, except in very rare instances I want this procedure stopped. That's the point of the legislation and Americans overwhelmingly agree with my position. I don't include you, but "woman's rights advocates" are not really being honest when they insist on a "health" exemption. They seek only to render the legislation unenforceable.
But I'm for finding common ground...
So define "health."