Well before I even consider reading whatever nonsense rants are contained therein, I have my own question: Why do Republicans want to destroy the constitution?
More assaults on Article III, due process, & Roe v. Wade.
Yes, yes, I know. You,the readers who are anti-choice, have a quick fix for this. Anything a judge decides that you don't like can be disregarded because the judge was a "liberal activist." Or worse: A socialist progressive.
So if you don't like Supreme Court precedent, you can ignore Article III and do whatever you like to undermine it.
You can disagree with an opinion, but you must respect Article III and Marbury v. Madison. That is, unless all your patriotic bluster about loving the Constitution is hypocrisy aka bullsh*t.
Opponents of abortion say they expect that discussion of fetal pain — even in the face of scientific criticism — will alter public perception of abortion, and they have made support for the new laws a litmus test for Republicans seeking the presidency.
Since Nebraska passed the first 20-week limit last year, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and, this month, Alabama have followed. A similar law has advanced in the Iowa legislature, and anti-abortion campaigners have vowed to promote such laws in more states next year.
The point of viability is the constitutional cutoff for the woman's right to make decisions about her body and more particularly the thing gestating within. That's usually 24 weeks.
Trying to destroy the constitution based on a lie is fine when you don't disagree with it because as all good Republicans & Conservatives know, women who seek abortion are dirty lustbags who hate fetuses.
Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.
¶ Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.
¶ In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.
¶ After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed.
¶ Ms. Deaver said she got angry only after the grief had settled. “This should have been a private decision, made between me, my husband and my doctor,” she said in a telephone interview.
"“The suggestion that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain is inconsistent with the biological evidence,” said Dr. David A. Grimes, a prominent researcher and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. “To suggest that pain can be perceived without a cerebral cortex is also inconsistent with the definition of pain.” "