Discussion for article #236815
“To substitute its own preference to that of the female citizen in this area is not the proper role of the legislature.” Fixed it.
2 Likes
Arkansas sure likes to waste taxpayer money on these types of lawsuits, don’t they?
Wasteful because this was a no-brainer from the start, and this attempt to narrow the definition of the constitutionality of the law was never going to be confined to a 12 week gestation period.
The court called out the State for pretending to impose this ban as a needed regulation, without being able to argue the facts on viability outside the womb by all scientific consensus and previous court battles. The effort to impose an ideological bent based on the presence of a heartbeat, is replete with non-scientific poppycock…Its a wonder to me how this lawsuit managed to get this far. Its a restriction that is nothing more than an attempt to impinge on the free and unfettered access for women seeking an abortion as their constitutional right.
I guess that pro-life bullshit doesn’t bother to include viability (actual survival) as a serious factor. The only concern Arkansas lawmakers give a shit about is being able to control those women-folk.
1 Like
Now it’s time to sue one of the states that has imposed a whole raft of laws/regulations that together prevent the “right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State.” Texas maybe?
2 Likes
The current Supreme Court has 3-4 members who wouldn’t consider it “undue interference” if a state required a woman to hike to one end of the Appalachian Trail to get an ultrasound and hike back to the other end within 48 hours for the abortion procedure.