@joeysoley Yup. The human right to privacy and women having a say in their autonomy is what Roe was based on and now that’s completely in question based on the cases Alito used to argue there was little “deep-rooted history” for basis:
Contraceptives, cohabitation, Obetgeffel’s same-sex marriage protections, gay and LGBTQ+ work protections—everything is up in the air if this draft is published as is.
However Buck v Bell wasn’t touched which is the states right to sterilize the “unfit” and “feeble minded”
The only solutions even proposed if a woman becomes impregnated and can’t care for the child is she can drop it off anonymously using the safe haven law or “have little reason to fear the baby will find a suitable home” should she need to place it for adoption.
(After all, that’s a pretty lucrative business for Catholic and Christian organizations)
So… No universal maternity leave. No additional insurance or government programs. No tax changes. No state funding. No planned parenthood. Nothing for school education for sex Ed, orphanages, foster care, CPS, etc. And no leniency for rape/deformities/incest.
Nothing but comparing Roe and Casey to several other autonomous rulings and systematically picking them apart because they’re not “deep-rooted in history” and denying womens “rights” based on the fact that Roe and Casey didn’t strengthen their arguments against other constitutional amendments while referencing that before 1970s people were held criminally liable for abortions and using 17th century England as a fkn starting point for our “history”.
