Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: The Equal Rights Amendment May Pass Now. It's Only Been 96 Years. [View all]ancianita
(36,058 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2019, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
state, and so no compelling state interest.
The already born have the constitutional rights of freedom. Their choice renders moot any others who would take them away -- namely, the anti-choicers.
"Narrow" definitions that widen rights to non-viable tissue that are not persons, are not narrow at all. Instead, they are broad, radical interpretations that serve male control interests and not women's freedoms. Radical conservatism presents itself as "the" narrow definer of interests belonging already to males' wealth and control over other humans. And that's how they've tried to interpret "law" for centuries.
Not for nothing, the only other unfair application of the constitution re personhood, is SCOTUS broadly granting corporations personhood. Now there's a wholly made-up, non-narrow legal construct if I ever saw one.