The Supreme Courtjesters were on a roll.
Yeah, we already knew this Roe v. Wade thing was coming, but now it's here. I think the timing is good because it deflected the Left-statist meltdown over the pro-gun ruling that was made hours earlier, giving them another cause to flip out over.
I don't really care about the abortion issue. So I'm at least willing to consider what government says about it (even if I'll probably reject their opinion on principle).
I don't see how abortion could be a natural human right unless it is a clear case of self-defense, nor any logical way for it to be a constitutional right.
Nowhere does the Constitution say "the right of women to end a pregnancy shall not be infringed".
Nor does it say the federal government has the "authority" to demand pregnant women not end their pregnancy.
It is silent on the matter, which means the federal government has no legitimate say. Even if this falls under the Ninth Amendment, I've always seen that as an indication it is outside of things government has "authority" over.
Obviously, the correct place for such decisions is with the individual, not with government-- but government doesn't like to turn loose of power. So, the Supremes kicked the control back up to the states-- which in such ambiguous cases is probably somewhat better (which is different from ethical) than letting the feds control the matter.
I have my doubts that those who are most angry over the opinion understand it-- they are just taking their cues from those who tell them what to be outraged about. But the rage is real and may be dangerous.
I'll be on heightened alert for generalized violence from angry Left-statists, just in case, even though anything targeting me would be based on assumptions about my opinion. This area is probably exceptionally safe under the circumstances. I don't take it for granted, though.
(I've always been amused that "roe" is fish eggs-- fish reproduction. How fitting.)
-
Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon
