Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Well one thing I don't understand about this issue is, before the American government had the power over all states when it comes to abortion, right...

But just a few months ago, I remember there was a controversy of Texas making it a law that you had to get one within six weeks of getting pregnant or the right to an abortion expires.

So how was Texas able to do that just a few months ago, if the federal goverment had all the power of the state when it came to abortion?

This 10-year-old girl is a victim. That’s the bottom line.

She shouldn’t be forced to testify in front of a scrutinizing public. It’s not morally right. She shouldn’t be used as a political symbol.

The person who should be up for scrutiny is the person who impregnated the 10-year-old girl.

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.


This has clearly been reported to authorities.
OP, you suggested that the child tolerated this without telling anyone.
You gave an unnecessarily graphic illustration of the fact it could have gone on for six months.
Your post also suggests she wouldn't have conceived if she had told someone sooner.

You're blaming the victim, regardless of anything you say to the contrary.

The child was referred by a child abuse doctor, meaning it has been reported.
It's already in the hands of social services.
She was only six weeks pregnant - meaning she conceived roughly four weeks ago.
She wouldn't have even tested positive until two weeks ago.
She's managed to tell someone and get help in this short span of time despite the trauma.

Whatever happens in the criminal case (most likely against a family member, including minor brothers or cousins), is none of our business because of privacy laws.

This child might already live in foster care and not even have a family.

There's no use in speculating her circumstance.
All that matters is she is offered dignity, support, and privacy during this horrible time.
I'm sure that will involve a thorough criminal investigation.

End story.

Well it seems that before Roe vs. Wade, everyone was having sex and still living fine before then. So is it really that bad, if it it's pushed back to the decision of the states, where as before 1972, everyone was still living fine it seems, and still got by?

Maybe we should roll back time to pre-1929, and cancel the Persons Case too.

If women don't deserve constitutional equality in America, I guess we don't need it here either? / sarc

Must say have noticed my thread disappeared , but the point is the same here, but I have to retract about Roe vs Wade, it was a Supreme Court judgement not an amendment to our constitution. But does not mean ,I feel any less strongly about this Courts decision .

Jakki,
It was a Supreme Court decision, denying that a woman's right to choice is protected by the 14th Amendment pertaining to privacy rights. Case law is a powerful precedent. That means all Americans are not created equal: Men across America will have the right to sex without parenthood, and women in blue states will have the option of abortion. Women in red states should be able to sue for an infringement of their inalienable rights, and start new "RvW" cases in the future.

I'm hopeful that Ketanji Brown Jackson will help promote equality for all Americans.

So does this mean that americans can still get abortions it's just that they might not have privacy over it?