Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

      • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They had dozens of opportunities…

        Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.

        Yes they did. They didn’t so idiots would keep voting for them and to say that your rights are ‘under attack’

        Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? That’s where you’re at.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            1977-1979 under jimmy carter 1993-1995 under bill clinton 2007-2011 under Obama

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

            You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.

            Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.

            Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was unaware that the entirety of Obama’s had a democratic majority both houses of Congress. Gonna check into that along with the other presidents. It would be pretty incredible for all three presidents to have a democratic majority in both houses for the whole presidency.