If SCOTUS decides to 'remain neutral' on abortion rights, they're effectively saying fetuses have no inherent constitutional 'right to life' per the USC.
That means any attempt to outlaw it as such would then be an unconsititutional violations of fully living womens' rights.
That means any attempt to outlaw it as such would then be an unconsititutional violations of fully living womens' rights.
The thing is, you can't just willy-nilly restrict the rights of one person - unless you're doing it to ensure someone else's liberty is not impeded.
The only limit to our own liberty exists when it negatively impacts another's liberty.
The only limit to our own liberty exists when it negatively impacts another's liberty.
If SCOTUS "neutrally" deems non-viable fetuses are not guaranteed the same rights & freedoms that a fully realized human adult possesses under the constitution in ALL states,
there can be NO constitutional path to limit the rights of pregnant women to terminate that pregnancy.
there can be NO constitutional path to limit the rights of pregnant women to terminate that pregnancy.
You can't have it both ways - you can't be 'neutral' on the issue and allow it to continue in some states without implicitly stating a non-viable fetus has no inherent rights to protect, thusly undermining any rationale permitting outlawing abortion services in any states.
And point blank, it is the job of the US government to guarantee the constitutional rights of all persons within their borders. If any female living is unable to accept employment in another state because it will impinge upon her rights, that law must be deemed unconstitutional.
Say I were to get a job offer in Texas, but I had to turn down that offer down because
a) I had been impregnated as a victim of sexual assault once
b) I feared that it would happen again in a state that would force me to carry to term...
a) I had been impregnated as a victim of sexual assault once
b) I feared that it would happen again in a state that would force me to carry to term...
essentially permitting that State to allow the assailant to effectively continue raping me for 9 months....
Yeah, that would be a violation of my rights - and one that would not be experienced by a man.
Yeah, that would be a violation of my rights - and one that would not be experienced by a man.
And if I were already working somewhere that wanted to relocate me, I'd be forced to choose to lose my livelihood as a result of that OTHER state's law, in which I have no say as a non-resident, until I move there (which I ain't gonna do).
Since men would never be forced to make that choice, that is blatant sex-based employment discrimination. That means any state passing anti-abortion laws are patently discriminatory and inherently unconstitutional, if only from the perspective of employment rights.
(or I'd have grounds for an interesting suit that could realistically keep ALL employers from establishing a presence in states that have laws against abortion in case of non-consensual impregnation for fear of discrimination suits.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
