It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 18
22
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: dawnstar

I just also understand that certain ideologies - if they gain enough positions of power - can overturn Roe vs Wade without amending the constitution. That's all.



it would therefore take either a Constitutional Amendment or another SCOTUS decision to overturn it.


SC already gave the scope for reversal, without any constitutional amendment.
But you are correct.
Either a constitutional amendment or the SC deciding to reverse (without a constitutional amendment) - which would happen fairly swiftly if Congress passed the law that Rand Paul wants passed.

That's the point - it doesn't actual REQUIRE a constitutional amendment to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision.
edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth




Whatever. Seems to me, and anyone else that can read, it's clear that the constitution does not require an amendment to overturn Roe vs Wade.


What's clear is there are people willing to subvert the US Constitution in order to control women and their bodies.





Maybe, maybe not. That is a matter of perspective. I am merely pointing out that those people you are referring to could be successful without a constitutional amendment.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

not really, all they would be doing would be tasking the courts into playing a balancing act weighing the rights between fetus and mother.. as well as in some cases those who are dependent on the mother's ability to function in her day to day life. and in probably more cases than they would find acceptable, the balance would tip towards the mother's rights. there would still be abortions, there would still be the arguing and bickering about them.

if we accept the idea that life begins at conception, then in order to protect that life, we would have to ban just about all forms of contraception, since although most of the pregnancies are prevented by preventing conception, the backup plan on many of them is to make the uterus inhospitable to the embryo. thus denying it's right to occupancy in the women's body which it needs to grow and develop.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



That is a matter of perspective.


No it's not. Words have meanings. The phrase "Persons Born" is not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact.




top topics
 
22
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join