Photo credit: Netblogpro

by Ken Reid

Should Governor Glenn Youngkin succeed in getting the Virginia General Assembly to curb abortion in Virginia from 25 weeks of pregnancy (at present) to 15, some 97% of abortions will still be protected, according to 2019 stats from the  Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition, in six of the eight states which had pre-Roe v. Wade abortion bans, which have now become law again, an overwhelming majority of abortions will continue because abortion drugs (like Mifeprex – generic, mifepristone) –- cannot be outlawed. The only state with a trigger law where only 39% of abortions would continue is Missouri, based on data from the CDC.

In two states, Ohio and Texas, which have enacted restrictions after six weeks of pregnancy, CDC data indicates abortion through Mifeprex could conceivably cover 62% and 80% of abortions in those states, respectively.

About 54% of all abortions in 2019 were by abortion drugs, not surgery. Not all 1st trimester abortions can be done via drug, but the numbers are increasing and I will explain shortly why the states can do little about it.

I covered the drug and device industry for the trade press for 35 years, so I have some expertise here. Since the Supreme Court overturn of Roe was leaked in early May, I have written several articles, including a letter in The Washington Post,  about how this decision is really a wash for both sides – but these facts have not entered the news cycle or TV punditry. You can read one of these articles here.

Here are my arguments:

Virginia: Youngkin issued a news release the very day the Supreme court decided to overturn Roe on a 6 to 3 vote, asking two GOP senators and two delegates “to join us in an effort to bring together legislators and advocates from across the Commonwealth on this issue to find areas where we can agree and chart the most successful path forward. I’ve asked them to do the important work needed and be prepared to introduce legislation when the General Assembly returns in January.”

According to the Virginia Mercury, Youngkin supports abortion exceptions in cases involving rape or incest or where the mother’s life is at risk.

While Republicans are in the minority in the State Senate, 21-19, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that Sen. Joe Morrissey, D-Richmond, a Catholic who opposes abortion, could be a pivotal vote in passing what Youngkin and Republicans want, and then Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears can break a tie

According to CDC, there were 391 abortions in Virginia in 2019 beyond the 15th week, out of 15,582. To my knowledge, there is no data on whether these were conducted due to the three exceptions Youngkin outlined, but the reality is that restrictions after 15 weeks in Virginia will impact very few women.

(Important note: I am using CDC data, vs. data from the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute, which has higher numbers for abortions, because they do not have the breakdowns CDC has. )

Trigger states: Much has been reported about 13 states having “trigger laws,” essentially laws that banned or curtailed abortion pre-Roe that remained on the books, and which are now law in those states since Roe was overturned.

But according to The Guardian, there are only eight states with “bans,” and it’s unclear what exceptions each state has, if any.

But I matched CDCs data on abortion based on pregnancy week to devise these statistics, which show abortions that could still continue via drugs (approved for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy):

Update: CDC did not provide data for Wisconsin, one of the eight “trigger” states, which reported 6,467 abortions in 2019.

Only in Missouri would a majority of abortions be restricted beyond 10 weeks, which is the limit to which Mifeprex can be used.

I included Ohio and Texas because according to Guttmacher and The Guardian, they have bans at 6 weeks. But the CDC data shows that if drugs were used in those first 10 weeks, some 62% of abortions in Ohio and 80% in Texas would continue.

Why can’t states restrict abortifacient drugs? – Mifeprex, first approved in 2000, is indicated for abortions up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. On Dec. 16, 2021, the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone and expanded the distribution to certified pharmacies in addition to certified clinicians. This change allows for distribution of medication abortion by mail in states that do not restrict telehealth for medication abortion. Despite the change to the in-person requirement, prescribers are still required to be certified by the manufacturers

There is little the states can do to restrict it beyond what FDA allows because the agency has pre-empted state rules, and states cannot restrict drugs and devices sold in interstate commerce under the Constitution (dormant commerce clause, as it is called).

Noah Feldman, a liberal pro-abortion rights professor at Harvard Law School, agrees in this opinion piece in Bloomberg and The Washington Post in early April: “The constitutional justification for this federal authority is that drugs affect interstate commerce…. Congress and the FDA have occupied the field of drug regulation, thus preempting states from legislating in a way that bars a drug approved by the federal government.”

U.S Attorney General Merrick Garland said: “States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

Garland added: “The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.”

And I would expect Big Pharma to send some very good attorneys into court to back DOJ efforts to defend FDA pre-emption. One abortion drug maker already is suing Mississippi for prohibiting remote prescriptions.

Women cannot be restricted from going to another state for abortion. In the rest of his statement, Garland said something the liberal spin machine refuses to acknowledge in the rest of his statement: “Today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.

“… Under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states.”

Justice Kavanaugh said the same in his opinion on the case.

Medical technology advances render Roe v. Wade moot. CDC reports fewer than 700,000 abortions today vs. a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. Why?

When Roe was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy, there were no home pregnancy tests, no abortion drugs, and women (especially the poor) could literally go into the 2nd trimester gaining weight without knowing they were pregnant. Bans in most states were severe, meaning women had to travel to liberal states. Travel was expensive (especially by air) and about 18% of the U.S. population did not own cars in 1970. But today, about 91.5% of the U.S. population has access to a car. Pro-abortion groups are already contemplating providing travel to women in need if they have to go out of state for an abortion.

Ectopic pregnancy treatments will continue. Ectopic pregnancies amount to about 1-2 percent per year (about 100,000) and 97% are in the fallopian tube according to the CDC, which means they can be treated without surgical intervention (primarily with the drug methotrexate). But surgical removal of an ectopic embryo is not abortion and will continue.

In sum, the June 24 overturn is not the travesty the Left is portraying, and it’s a symbolic victory for the pro-life movement because abortion will still continue. I am pro-life and wish that weren’t so, but the data points in that direction.

Ken Reid is a former Loudoun County supervisor and member of the Leesburg Town Council and currently lives in Tysons Corner. He is active in Republican politics in Virginia and authored the book, The Six Secrets to Winning ANY Local Election and Navigating Elected Office Once You Win.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

151 responses to “Impact of Supremes’ Roe v. Wade Ruling Way Overstated”

  1. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    The “tell” that the Dobbs decision is theology disguised by shoddy legal history is the mention of a Catholic senate vote to enact a ban in VA. There are six Catholics on SCOTUS (Gorsuch was raised Catholic) which was not an accident of the appointment process. There, the primary coach for the Trump appointments was the Catholic head of the Federalist Society. Trump prominently boasted he would appoint Justices to overturn Roe. Interestingly, polls show 67% of lay Catholics believed Roe should have been left standing. Prominently, in VA abortion was not an evangelical concern until Jerry Falwell, Sr was infected by the political bug.

    Anti-abortion and/or the politically more acceptable term pro-life was birthed in theology. As such, it violates the separation of church and state for most non-believers.

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Please show me where it says “separation of church and State” in the Constitution.
      Oh, now you love TJ? And a letter to the Danbury Baptists trumps the Constitution? Good to know. The Alice in Wonderland Constitution – it means whatever Libs want it to mean, at that time and for that purpose, until they need to change again…Anybody can be a woman! Only a woman can choose!

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        I have written on several occasions that TJ’s woke views were admirable. The separation of church is not literally in the Constitution nor is authority for judicial review upon which the Court relies to overturn precedent. Marbury inferred that power from words in the document. Thus, as usual, your keyboard outran your thoughts to produce confusion.

        1. Rosie Avatar

          Laws decided on religious grounds are tacit establishment of a state religion, which is a violation of the First Amendment.

          1. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            they aren’t “decided on religious grounds.” Thats your interpretation, but like it or not, even atheists and very secular states like in Scandinavia are imbued with Western values and those are based on Judeo-CHristian values and teachings. Thus our laws and judicial rulings reflect that.

          2. Rosie Avatar

            You are the one bringing up religion. I think one can certainly argue against abortion on secular grounds, even if I don’t agree with it.

            “Don’t murder” and other basic laws are not unique to Christianity and Judaism. Eastern cultures came to similar conclusions without Abrahamic religions guiding them.

            The whole “imbued with western values” talk is just another way of implying you really want a Christian theocracy without outright saying it. Sorry, but you can let your religion guide you towards your politics, but the implementation of those politics has to be argued on secular means so that all faiths are being respected.

            This cuts both ways! Laws must respect religious freedoms unless there is a pressing reason to do so otherwise (eg religious parents refusing to treat a child’s illness) so I am requesting to mandate secular beliefs. But we can only have a land of diverse faiths by understanding that the government has to be impartial. And laws built on religious grounds are inherently biased towards that religion.

          3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            So why does the United States prohibit female circumcision that is allowed by many other cultures? I guess we should repeal those laws. How about the mixture of Democratic Party politics in black churches? New England Protestant ministers were at the forefront of the abolition movement. Many religious groups are fighting the death penalty.

            I always believed that Americans’ political views were shaped by many things, including their religious beliefs. Real separation of church and state means that the government should not be involved in questioning what people believe or what it motivates them to advocate.

          4. Rosie Avatar

            Or, perhaps we can do what’ve been doing and analyze laws on their own merits instead of what any holy book or higher being(s) dictate? Female circumcision is typically done without consent of the “patient.” If people willingly want to have that done to them, then sure? But I imagine there’d be few people willing to perform it and fewer takers. But as a society we value consent, and only do permit without consent when there is good reason.

            Again: groups motivates or spurred by religion are fine, but they still have to eventually argue for beyond “God Said It, I Believe, That Settles It” because it’s not compelling to someone with a different or no gods.

          5. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            You didn’t address the other examples/questions.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Rubbish!!

          7. WayneS Avatar

            Were our laws against murder “decided on religious grounds”?

            If not, then upon what were they founded?

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Blah blah blah…
          Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Blah blah blah… we are not a theocracy… at least not yet…

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Well you’re in trouble now. I just got back from church and prayed for a theocracy… It’s coming. No shellfish for you!

        3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Are you familiar with Bonham’s case, 77 Eng. Rep. 638 (Common Pleas 1610)? Fuller’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 1322 (1607)? Coke disputed the King’s claim that he possessed the power to withdraw a case from the courts.

          The Case of the Proclamations, 77 Eng.Rep. 1352 (1607), holding that the King was not entitled to change the common law or to create any new offence by proclamation?

          Do these and other cases provide a straight road to Marbury? No, but they form a foundation for the view that courts had authority to apply the constitution (unwritten or written) to control the action of another branch of government.

          The late Bryce Lyon’s 1960 treatise, A Constitutional and Legal History of England, gives a general overview of court appeals at 294-95, 465-66.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re; “separation of church and State” – yep , true

        now what? any/all religions anywhere/everywhere in laws, institutions, schools, etc?

        Is that where SCOTUS should go?

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Larry – do you know how to make an argument not based on silliness?
          At the time the Constitution was adopted, many, maybe most, States had official religions. Oh, yeah, another thing to thank TJ for – religious liberty – you guys seriously are ingrates…oh, well.
          So, what – the Supreme Court is going to mandate a theocracy?
          That’s not how “our democracy” (as you Libs who love authoritarianism like to say) works. A legislature passes laws. It is a good idea to pass laws that are supported by the people. In some cases, governments pass laws that are bad policy, but not contrary to God’s law, so Christians shut up and obey. If a law violates God’s law, then Christians speak up. And still might lose the case in the public square, but don’t have to engage in the immoral law. Abortion for example. Now, when you compel Christians to do things that they believe conflict with God’s laws, that is a problem – see TJ and the concept of religious liberty. Federalism is a good thing, as is religious tolerance. And don’t come at me with “so a Christian can say God told him to murder that person” – ridiculous and you are describing abortion and jihad…not orthodox Christ followers…

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You make the case that the Dobbs decision is based on theology, not science or law. Federalism is not, BTW, a religion. The recent two decisions on religion would horrify TJ. Indeed, “bad” policies compel all equally; that’s how the rule of law functions. Equating abortion to an immoral law is a religious, doctrinal view, as authoritarian as any might be. Those who do not believe in abortion are not compelled to undertake the procedure.

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So, do you hate “religion?” Is “religion” disqualifying?
            How about natural law? Does natural law exist?
            I don’t make the case that Dobbs is based on theology. I make the case that federalism is a better way to deal with this, and there is a profound moral question. Is the baby a person? Do atheists think killing a person is bad? How about secular humanists? The problem with Roe is it took the democratic process away for 50 years and you guys don’t know how to argue – you have to hide behind “choice” and “privacy” and “my body my choice” to change the subject of the elephant in the room – is the “clump of cells” a human being? I think Youngkin’s ask of 15 weeks is politically quite moderate. It still doesn’t answer the question, but it is at least a start… Is it “religious” to be against stealing? That’s in the Bible, so it must be… So I guess we now have two competing Bibles, the Book of Larry and the Book of James (not the brother or apostle, but the guy from NoVa)

          3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Somehow, I doubt that TJ believed in emanations and penumbras.

            Bill Clinton and the Democrats attempted to codify abortion rights in 1993, with the Freedom of Choice Act. But the extremists would allow for no amendments such as parental consent for minors. The bill never came up for a vote in Clinton’s first two years in office.

            In 2008, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do in office was sign FOCA. https://youtu.be/pf0XIRZSTt8 He had 256 D’s in the House, with a number of pro-choice Rs and 60 D’s in the Senate but dropped FOCA as a priority. https://youtu.be/RxiDZejZFjg

            Just because the Post won’t report on something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

            What if Clinton had pressed? What if Obama had pressed? At least Tim Kaine understands that a legislative solution is needed and understands there will need to be some compromises to get a bill passed.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” So, what – the Supreme Court is going to mandate a theocracy?”

            going to mandate that any/all religion may be taught in any/all schools if they want to because doing so is not prohibited in the Constitution?

            SCOTUS saying that abortion is not a Constitutional “right” but States can decide if it is or is not for their state?

            At what point does SCOTUS decide the states have gone “too far” ?

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Have you read the 1st Amendment?
            If a State wants to establish religious schools, as opposed to the secular humanist ineffective schools, why not? Does that scare you? If the State allows pluralism, allows choice, do you fear that they won’t be able to make all kids as stupid as they are now?
            The ultimate answer is freedom. Let the money follow the kid. Ooh…scary!

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So we can have state-funded Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist schools, right?

            what has to happen to allow that to go forward?

            Already happened?

          7. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Money follows the kid and government stays out of the way. Easy

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “government” stays out of the way by taxing people and then giving the money to others to use as they see fit? That’s “government staying out of the way”?

          9. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Why isn’t it? Because the government is “paying?” Then let the burden fall on all families to educate their kids. But then you need government funding? Then let the parents use the funding, instead of the inferior government product.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            right. Tax others then give the money to parents to spend as they see fit? yep.

          11. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            OK… tax others and then spend it how? Only with Larry the Great’s benign and all-knowing approval? But only spent as our benevolent, captured, horrible “public servants” dictate? You are making a fool out of yourself, reflexively. I guess government should really spend no money ever. Parents can vote for the idiots who tax them, but can’t have a say in how the taxes are spent? I thought you liked liberty! Quit digging…

          12. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            So much BS. The money will flow to kids by name only. The religious institutions are the financial beneficiary.

          13. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            As are the public schools and the teacher union blob which produce a crappy product.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Virginia ranks 10th in the nation on NAEP – not exactly “crap”.

          15. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            And that doesn’t mean the schools are any good. Virginia lives in direct access to the federal teat and has a lot of money. A lot of educated people, who marry each other and generally then have high achieving kids, but not due to the schools being great – ask the fatherless kids in the hellhole cities, and their Moms and Grannies.
            OK, Larry. I have work to do. It has been fun playing with you like a cat “plays” with a mouse…
            Sometimes, answers aren’t D or R. You might wanna consider the possibility.

          16. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I don’t think public schools are bad for the vast majority. Virginia ranks high and a significant percentage of kids go on to college after k-12.

            We hold public schools to high standards in terms of reporting their results. That’s how we know about their performance and how the critics get the data they use against them – to justify – non-public schools with no such requirements to report their performance so we can actually know if they are better or not.

            Do you believe everyone should pay taxes for schools including those who do not have kids?

            so you’d take that money from them and give it to someone else to spend without any accountability for it?

            That’s wacadoodle guy.

          17. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            The Supreme Court hasn’t mandated anything. They have referred the matter to Congress and/or the states. You know – the elected representatives who are up for re-election every 2 or 4 years. In other words, where the matter belonged in the first place.

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It’s really not that scary. You know, Christians are the ones who acknowledge free will (Jews, too), unlike, for example Muslims who call people infidels and authorize things like taqqiyah and jihad. But there has to be some basis for all laws – all laws are a moral judgment – what is yours? Whatever Larry thinks?

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Not all laws are moral judgments. Some, like traffic laws, are amoral. Again, tape some of the keys on your board.

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            It is a moral judgment. It is the judgment that safety requires a lower speed. Why? To protect life and limb? Or to make an intersection safer with lights. For every law, there is some judgment that the law is “good.” I’m good with laws neutrally applied, but you cannot pretend that a law is power and is based on “good” which is based on, or should derive from, morality. Gonna try to get me disbarred for that?

          3. WayneS Avatar

            Malum in se – an act that is evil, sinful or inherently wrong by its very nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

            Malum prohibitum – an act that is unlawful only by virtue of a statute proscribing it.

            But where does the concept of “moral” and “evil” originate?

          4. WayneS Avatar

            Malum in se – an act that is evil, sinful or inherently wrong by its very nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

            Malum prohibitum – an act that is unlawful only by virtue of a statute proscribing it.

            But where does the concept of “moral” and “evil” originate?

          5. WayneS Avatar

            Malum in se – an act that is evil, sinful or inherently wrong by its very nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

            Malum prohibitum – an act that is unlawful only by virtue of a statute proscribing it.

            But where does the concept of “moral” and “evil” originate?

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Thank you. Very useful. I never looked at the numbers like that before.

  3. You really think anyone believes it’s going to just stop here? We have old trigger laws and one abortion law dating back to the 1800s. These states will undoubtedly want new laws to further clamp down in many cases.

    Texas already has workings on a law that bans businesses from reimbursements for abortion-related expenses. Missouri has a bill trying to ban residents from traveling for abortions. You said they can’t ban pills, but you didn’t say anything about banning telehealth for abortions. They will find loopholes or sue until the SCOTUS rubber stamps it.

    Sorry, not that gullible.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Exactly!! What do you think will be the #1 target of a Trump or Desantis controlled FDA? It will enter GOP stump speeches in…3…2…1…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        The “major questions doctrine” will allow the Supremes to say that the FDA doesn’t have the authority to decide which drugs can be mailed. It is the legislature’s job to do that.

        “We want to play our ‘Get Out of Text Free’ card again, Alex.”

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Why stop there? SCOTUS could rule that agencies cannot make regulations – period. Every bit of it has to be codified law! After all, where does the Constitution say that regulations can be created?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, I’ll bet in British Common, but these justices will stop at 1781 when they want, or go to 1066 if they need.

        2. Ken Reid Avatar
          Ken Reid

          Congress has delegated authority over drug and device marketing to FDA, and bit to FTC. That’s been upheld by the courts over and over again. It sounds to me you’re pro choice, so why wouldn’t you believe Merrick Garland? Did you bother to read what he said that drugs will be pre-empted?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            did that for the EPA also, right?

          2. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            yes they did. The Supreme court decision the other day was limited to that one regulation which the COurt deemed to be legislation that COngress needed to enact!

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yes – on WHAT basis? what is the underlying reason?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            he’s doing a LOT of talking, explaining… … usually when you’re winning… you’re not….

            He’s either participating in a false narrative himself or he’s being fooled also.

          5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Next time swim the creek first and then climb the tree. Happy 4th Mr. Larry!

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Happy 4th to you too James……

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            That it was “politically significant”…. is not abortion “politically significant”…? Now we have a Conservative court legislating from the bench and Conservatives are mum… of course. Why couldn’t the legislature simply have passed a law restricting the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gasses? A simple clarification of the law, right? They didn’t so the Thomas SCOTUS decided to do it for them.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes, exactly.

          9. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            The court is not legislating from the bench. They are undoing previous courts’ legislation from the bench. Clinton and Obama both had sufficient control of Congress to pass a national abortion law. However, they preferred to allow SCOTUS to do the unpopular work for them. Today, Biden and Pelosi both claim they will legislate federal law on abortion. Good for both of them. That’s how it should have been done from the start,.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so…. agency-promulgated regulations are un-constitutional because Congress did not explicitly grant the agency that power?

            When can an agency promulgate a regulation and not?

          11. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            An agency can regulate when the enabling law allows it.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so who decides that? Every challenge to a regulation goes to SCOTUS?

          13. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            That’s it. An agency can only create regulations when its underlying statutes permit it. So a regulation outside the realm of the statute is void. People, businesses, associations and nonprofits challenge federal regulations all the time. And they win if they can show it’s beyond the scope of the statute.

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I was referring to the recent EPA ruling.

          15. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            On a positive note, I found that I’m still on a mailing list from Senator Kaine. He expressed distress at the Dobbs case but said he is reaching across the aisle to try to find some common ground on abortion access. My goodness. A senator doing what our system of government intends.

          16. WayneS Avatar

            Why couldn’t the legislature simply have passed a law restricting the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gasses?

            Because in the particular case decided yesterday they don’t need to. In that particular case, EPA had moved beyond the powers granted them in the Clean Air Act.

            Therefore, since our Constitution is based on the concept of negative rights (if it ain’t in there it ain’t in there) , Congress needs to pass a law to empower the EPA to regulate emission in the “creative” manner they have been using, in order for it to be legal for them to do so.

            Congress has not passed such legislation, so the SCOTUS telling EPA they cannot use these “creative” interpretations is not regulating from the bench, it is demanding that the legislature and the executive stay in their lanes.

            If you want EPA to be able to behave as they have been behaving as regards the Clean Air Act then ask your congress-critter and/or senator to sponsor legislation permitting it.

            — from NPR’s on-line article yesterday about the ruling:

            By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new – in this case addressing climate change – the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere.

            As Case Western Reserve professor Jonathan Adler put it, “The Court is definitely sending a signal to regulatory agencies more broadly that they only have the power that Congress delegated to them, and that agencies need to think twice before they try to pour new wine out of old bottles.”

          17. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Because in the particular case decided yesterday they don’t need to. In that particular case, EPA had moved beyond the powers granted them in the Clean Air Act.”

            That is what the Thomas SCOTUS contends. Apparently Congress did not agree or they would have acted to rein in the EPA.

          18. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Because we are not a democracy, we govern by litigation.

          19. WayneS Avatar

            A Litigocracy?

    2. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      I love watching you people melt down over the right to kill a baby. But, it won’t go away, and you really blew it for 50 years by being absolutist a-holes, insisting it was OK to kill the baby in the birth canal (by the way, it is a baby, just like there are only men and women and it takes a sperm cell to fertilize an egg and sperm comes from men and eggs from women – I should teach biology at UVA and the UVA swim team). There is a profound moral question – is that a human being? Does it have a soul? Should we protect THAT life? So the pro-life side isn’t going to stop, and I think they have the better side of the argument. But you guys love criminals and hate the innocent, so Hail Moloch!
      (It’s so much fun to poke the bear…)
      Hey, how come guys are piping in here? What right do you have to say? (or is it that you want sex without consequences? Patriarchy!)

      1. Ken Reid Avatar
        Ken Reid

        excellent points. Wish I could have made that in the article, but today’s Democrats have moved away from Bill Clinton’s message that abortion should be “rare” and now feel that killing kids in the womb — even if viable — is a Constitutional right and there’s no need for couples to behave responsibily and use contraception. Liberals believe the State is there to save you and care for you even if you are at fault; no personal responsibilty. Perhaps one benefit of all of this is that men and women will behave more responsibly

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          so you really do reveal your thinking here, Ken. Do your words here actually match your real views?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            OK, Larry – what are his views? What are your views? Do you believe it is OK to abort a baby? At any time? Any reason? Why is your life superior to that life? And you think that? Does that make you a “good” person? Is someone a “bad” person if he disagrees with your view? Quit using euphemisms and misdirection and say what you believe. “Medical freedom!” Uh…what have you done the last 2 years on mandating medical experimentation on the world, including my daughters, and it really p***es me off! Hypocrites.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m seriously conflicted by the issue but I do believe there are times when abortion is warranted and if we want to change the definition of a human being – we need to do so – in fact – not base decisions on various individual beliefs and especially those based on religion.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – then what do you base your laws on? How do you know if something is good or bad? If someone bases his views on “religion,” is that disqualifying? Thomas Jefferson referred to a natural law (all the Founders understood). Isn’t your view its own religion? What is in Larry’s Book of Good? How did it come to exist?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think there are many religions in the world – and they have different beliefs and they conflict with each other –

            so you have to have uniform laws that apply to everyone and not favor one religion over another.

            Religion is a menace to mankind.

            Don’t confuse that with belief there is a God. It’s religious rules and beliefs created by men – who supposedly got it from GOD.

            Most all religion is what people believe THEIR GOD created and that other religions are wrong – even “cults”.

            There is no way to govern if all religions are allowed to try to enforce their specific beliefs on everyone including those of other religions.

            We have real-world examples of this in the world today.

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Uh huh. In any Christian nation?
            Larry – I am not trying to pick on you, but you offer so much opportunity for correction.
            All laws are a moral choice. When an abortion loving politician says he doesn’t want to impose his morality on anyone, he is lying. He wants green energy and wants to mandate celebrating pride and censoring speech that opposes trans, etc. All law is a choice. And it is based on someone’s view of what is good or what is bad.
            So define your great and all encompassing moral system that will lead to Utopia. What Larry says? Hail, King Larry!
            Is stealing OK since the Bible prohibits it? Or did “the sky God” get that one right?

          6. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            Good point. The secularists in our society do not want to face the fact that The Constitution protects non believers, but all of our laws and our ethos are grounded in Western/Judeo-Christian principles. Doestoevsky said: “If you have no God, then anything is allowed,” and that’s where Leftists are headed these days — anything politiciains allow is good, even if it corrodes or rubs against our values as a society.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Ummm complete and historically inaccurate bs…

          8. Rosie Avatar

            Well those Judeo-Christian values also got us slavery for a near century, so you’ll have to excuse me if I prefer more rationally grounded reasoning for laws.

            We can certainly move on from flawed ethos, and, since nobody is forcing you to engage in abortion, you are free to continue practicing your faith as you see fit.

      2. Rosie Avatar

        The men saying that the choice is up to the individual woman are definitely the real misogynists.

      3. Rosie Avatar

        The men saying that the choice is up to the individual woman are definitely the real misogynists.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The problem isn’t that Texas and Missouri will take things to the extreme, but that 5 justices will uphold any of those extreme measures. I look forward to just how bad it will get in the courts. It’s my nature. I know how bad it will get in the hospitals.

      Our author’s credentials as a salesman are impeccable, but according to other published studies, in the most extreme States maternal mortality, albeit currently small, 1%, will rise by a minimum of 24%.

      I don’t think that increase includes the results of botched home remedies.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Or the increased reliance (as ole Ken predicts) on the abortion pill (for as long as Conservatives deem it legal) which as we noted previously will be used improperly where surgical abortions are illegal to the harm and death of some women. But worry not says Ken, it will only be a few women Conservatives will kill. No problemo…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Is Ken himself a useful idiot for the hard core right or is he one of “them’?

          1. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            Yes, I’m a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but facts are facts; hysteria over the Dobbs decision should be not be the rationale for making policy

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So I’ll agree that SOME on the left are wacadoodles.. yep. But you gotta admit that in your tent there are also some hard right evangelical types who are not done.

            So.. do you acknowledge that or are you still sticking to the idea that we’re done now?

          3. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            “We’re done now?” Huhh? Explain please

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no more anti-abortion rules/laws? We’re accomplished what we sought and now want no more?

          5. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            I don’t think we’ll see an end of state legislation, because the pro life and pro abortion rights activists/
            groups will still be out there pushing their respective agendas. The courts will decide what is legal under Dobbs, or not. But I am pretty sure we won’t see any federal legislation since Congress is so dysfunctional.

          6. Rosie Avatar

            So the hysteria is warranted? Because the thrust of the article is that things as they are now aren’t so bad, and the people treating this as a disaster are only overreacting if we assume nobody is going to try for harsher restrictions.

          7. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            I think you keep forgetting ONE BIG FACT — abortion on demand will be available in some 20 other states plus DC. ! This chart says in 11 stays access is “threatened,” but if you look at it state by state, youll see the restrictions contemplated are primarily in the 2nd and 3d trimester. As I noted in the article, interstate travel is more avalable and affordable today than it was in 1973. So, if a woman really wants to terminate her pregnancy, she has 20 states and Dc to choose to go! and, as Kavanaugh and Garland said, a state cannot restrict someone from traveling to another state for a medical service! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/jun/28/tracking-where-abortion-laws-stand-in-every-state

          8. Rosie Avatar

            I mentioned in the first comment that state lawmakers are already working to ban out-of-state travel and/or support from employment to travel for the procedure.

            And this is a week after the ruling. There’s no guarantee about a potential 5-4 ruling against such a ban, and neither justice mentioned the constitutionality of banning employer support of travel.

            And this doesn’t even get into the fact that not everyone will have a job offering such benefits, and travel can get very expensive if you need to travel 2-3 states over for an abortion.

            So yea, I think the concerns are warranted.

          9. WayneS Avatar

            I mentioned in the first comment that state lawmakers are already working to ban out-of-state travel and/or support from employment to travel for the procedure.

            Those state lawmakers will be fighting an uphill battle, and a steep one at that:

            https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol30/iss4/1/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20and%20Supreme,domestic%20movement%20without%20governmental%20abridgement.

          10. WayneS Avatar

            I mentioned in the first comment that state lawmakers are already working to ban out-of-state travel and/or support from employment to travel for the procedure.

            Those state lawmakers will be fighting an uphill battle, and a steep one at that:

            https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol30/iss4/1/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20and%20Supreme,domestic%20movement%20without%20governmental%20abridgement.

          11. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            Would you admit that perhaps it was not a good idea for the over zealous pro abortion rights movement to contest Mississippi’s 15-week ban, (only 16 abortions in the whole state reported in 2019 after 15 weeks) or else, Roe v Wade would be in tact today?

          12. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            Biotechnology will continue its March toward ever better abortions.

          13. Rosie Avatar

            So the hysteria is warranted? Because the thrust of the article is that things as they are now aren’t so bad, and the people treating this as a disaster are only overreacting if we assume nobody is going to try for harsher restrictions.

      2. Warmac9999 Avatar
        Warmac9999

        Then it will rise to 1.25%.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Dr” Warren here cares not if more women will die… the important thing here is his control of their uteri…

    4. Warmac9999 Avatar
      Warmac9999

      You can buy the morning after pill online – already CVS and Walmart have had to limit the number of pills sold. The hysterics of the left and their hatred of anything prolife is noted.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Really Ken…. c’mon…

    “RICHLANDS — Only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, Republican Sen. Travis Hackworth (R-38th) announced he will patron legislation in the 2023 Virginia General Assembly “to protect life.”

    Hackworth, who represents Pulaski County in Virginia Senate said he will patron the “Protecting Virginia’s Children Act,” which will “protect life at conception.””

    But your argument (incorrect) is that these laws only strip rights from a small number of people so we shouldn’t worry about it….? You are saying this? Have you forgotten your history?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      One rural legislator says he will patron a “life begins at conception” bill and the left panics?

      1. Ken Reid Avatar
        Ken Reid

        Correct. The piece was running too long so I cut out a paragraph stating “bill introductions do not mean law,” but the WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSDNC et. al. are running horror story after horror story about all these bill introductions, again, in order to create fear and panic and get more click revenue. I learned from my early days covering FDA that whatever the legislator says and does has no bearing until they vote. Eric the Halfwit chooses not to see that as liberals thrive on emotion vs. fact and reason. and, we should not be making policy based on emotion, and that includes some of the bills being introduced by pro-life forces.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” Eric the Halfwit “, so right on cue, you reveal that you too are one of those “name-caller” types who say they are conservative and argue for “reason”?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I pulled that bit of information from this The Bull Elephant piece… they are certainly supporters…

            https://thebullelephant.com/virginia-senator-hackworth-to-patron-life-begins-at-conception-bill/

            Sorry, but the jig is up… he showed where Conservatives will take the law and what is the ultimate endgame of overturning Roe v. Wade. Inconvenient for your smoke and mirrors show, I know.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I pulled that bit of information from this The Bull Elephant piece… they are certainly supporters…

            https://thebullelephant.com/virginia-senator-hackworth-to-patron-life-begins-at-conception-bill/

            Sorry, but the jig is up… he showed where Conservatives will take the law and what is the ultimate endgame of overturning Roe v. Wade. Inconvenient for your smoke and mirrors show, I know.

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            And Kathy Tran (along with Ralph Northam) tried to push abortion on demand right up until moments before birth. That was too extreme for our legislature just like “life begins at conception” sill prove too extreme for our legislature.

            The real argument is whether abortions will be legal in Virginia at 24 weeks vs 15 weeks.

          4. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            i think it’s currently 25 or 26, but the point you both make is this — as long as there is an anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights movement out there, legislators will ALWAYS be pressed into introducing one bill or the other to either expand, or curb abortion — or whatever. that’s our system of governance, but a bill introduction doesn’t guarantee passage, as DJ correctly noted with the blow up over Kathy Tran’s bill. Do you think she introduced that on her own volition? No, she was probably pressed into it by some Leftist group or donor that helped her campaign to get elected!

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        well not panic but recognition that there are more than a few anti-abortion folks – including legislators – who believe that birth control is also abortion.

        And what Ken is implying is ” don’t worry, some of us that are pro-life don’t believe that and will take a stand against it. True?

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          And there are more than a few abortion supporters who believe that an abortion should be legal right up to the moment of birth. They didn’t succeed in getting their extreme view passed into law and neither will the “life begins at conception” folks.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes, agree with your characterization.

            Where are we right now in terms of restrictions? Done? Or still going to make it more restrictive? Are there legislators advocating against contraception/

            Will SCOTUs say that such laws are up to the states if a state so legislates?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Actually since late term abortions are almost exclusively to protect the life of the woman, I would say that their “extreme view” actually has been passed into law and is hardly “extreme”.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        No, the tea leaves are actually quite clear as the 50 year effort to pack SCOTUS with conservative radicals. Remember, we are woke.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “It’a wash,” says he. Ask those in the midwesr what a “wash” is, and they’ll tell you a dry creek bed where things get swept away and drown in downpours.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Auschwitz had an orchestra.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: “liberal spin” – … uh… as opposed to what Mr. Reid is doing here?

    Good LORD!

    Anyone who buys what Ken Reid is selling is a candidate for rube of the century.

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      OK, Larry – please explain what Mr. Reid is doing that is “conservative spin.”
      Be factual.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        so he’s saying that what you say , we should not believe, right? That Conservatives are now satisfied with the issue and no more will be demanded?

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          OK. I think what you are saying without saying it is that this will not end the issue.
          Is that correct? Am I having to say that for you?
          So, what is the issue, Larry? What will it not “end”?
          I want you to say it. Not hide behind euphemisms.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            pretty clear. Are we finished with rules/laws/rulings with regard to abortion?

            or are there folks who want more/additonal/tougher rules including restrictions on contraception?

            clear?

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            NO. What are you saying? Say it!
            “Are there people…”
            So what do YOU, Larry, believe? Say it! Say, I think there should be no abortion restrictions or I think there should be a limit at X and explain WHY.
            I am already telling you – I have heard from people who have opposed abortion for 50 years that this does not end – they believe in “the sanctity of life” and they mean it. If you believe otherwise, say so, and why, instead of your silly non-arguments. Make your case.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            There are cases where abortion is warranted.

            what else do you want for my view?

            using phrases like “sanctity of life” is simplistic and not living in the real world IMHO.

            and the problem we have with some folks….

          4. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So, where? How else do people come to conclusions without specificity?
            The only case I can say with certainty is where the baby is killing the mother well before the baby is near term. After that, it’s tough. So, what do you think instead of hiding behind “it’s a woman’s choice” or “a decision between a woman and her doctor” – all euphemisms and not accurate because it is a horrible thing.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            that’s YOUR view. It’s not everyone by a long shot.

            I’m not hiding behind anything at all but I do think some of this boils down to the mother and not the state.

            It’s just not as simple as some of you folks think and you do have a simplistic view that is out of kilter with fundamental realities that we must deal with.

            And it’s not just the US and our politics. There is a world out there with many billions of people – not just you in the US and your religious beliefs.

          6. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            One more time Larry. The elephant in the room is the “clump of cells.” Is it a human? Does it have a soul? Is it any fault of the baby’s that it came to exist? I just want the people who are crying about this to be honest – where is the line where it is uncool to kill the baby? You care so much about criminals? And you know that Planned Parenthood was started by Sanger, mainly to kill black babies, right?
            Ultimately, the answer is to convince people it is wrong, because it is a human being. I think Youngkin’s proposal of 15 weeks is quite moderate. I think the zealots would be wise to agree and hope to take the focus off of the issue, because, if you keep peeling the onion, you cannot really in your heart agree with the reality of you are killing an innocent human life. I am sorry to be blunt, but that is true. So agree to limits, but it won’t remove the elephant in the room…
            Nobody is compelling anyone to get pregnant by the way. I’m pretty sure there are all sorts of ways to avoid that… from Rick Santorum’s joke (Catholic birth control? Hold an aspirin between your knees.) to rhythm to birth control… It’s not that hard, really…

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Like I said. You have your belief and views. Do you want to impose them on those who don’t share your views?

            If a fetus was truly a human being, a citizen, shouldn’t SCOTUS have ruled that THEIR rights as humans/citizens were being violated without sending to the states ?

          8. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            No, Larry. It isn’t in the Constitution, and I think you people who want to kill the baby would be wise to come to a political compromise and not force the issue to the 14th amendment. It was an act of judicial deference to send it back. And THAT issue was not before the Court. All it did was admit it was wrong – because it was.
            Do I want to impose my views? Well, besides admitting I would be an awesome benevolent dictator, no. How come you on the Left do? Vaccine mandates anyone? Weren’t you imposing your views? (That were illegal and immoral, but what they hey…)
            All laws are a moral choice. How do you come to your “morality?” Do you take all religious books and put them in a blender?
            You know the Christian joke – “I can’t join a church. It’s full of hypocrites.” And the preacher responds, “And we can use one more.”

      2. Ken Reid Avatar
        Ken Reid

        Ok. what are the “facts” in your estimate? Care to debate facts vs. emotion? Im game.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Hey! He has 35 years experience as a medical device salesman. He’s eminently qualified to provide a prognosis and sell BS.

      Hell, 25 years ago his ilk were performing cardiac surgery. Come to think of it, the FDA put a stop to that practice.

      1. Ken Reid Avatar
        Ken Reid

        35 years as a REPORTER covering the FDA and drug and device industry, not a salesperson. Ive never worked for the industry.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Oh, even better. See, when he inicated, “I’m not a doctor but I played one at a Holiday Inn,” I gave the rest of the story all the credence it deserves.

          Toe-sucker article, not even high enough to be thumb sucking

          1. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            you’re a real piece of work! I guess the facts in the article disturb you so much that you have to scrape for anything you can find to try to shoot holes in the credibility of the writer. Did you not see i quoted Merrick Garland and a liberal Harvard Law professor to prove my points? That’s not good enough for you?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You’re a misogynist. There, feel better? No. It’s not. The degree of autonomy a woman has over her body is not the subject of zip code. Here, lemme put it in terms you can appreciate. Missouri could, I suppose, mount their stoplights horizontally and use chartreuse, magenta, and cyan lights in random order, and Constitutionally it’d be fine. Not smart, but fine.

          3. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            I think there are uniform traffic signal standards that FhWA enforces . So, a state cannot use differnet colors or it loses it’s highway funding just like a state would lose federal funding if it went back to an 18 year old drinking age. Gosh you really are Naive, Nancy. And,

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So rights are less regulated than traffic codes in your world?

          5. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            The unborn have rights too, and there is no constittuional right to a medical procedure.

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Remember that if you need emergency services.

            But, while on the subject, should emergency rooms, EMTs, etc., offer rape victims prophylactic contraception like Plan-B? Or, spermicides?

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Mr. Reid is 100% correct that if VA passes a 15 week limit, the vast, vast majority of current abortions would remain legal. The battle is going to be over the medication abortions. He did some digging I thought about doing, and probably did it better than I would, knowing the sources. The usual lefties here have their panties in a wad for political reasons.

    As a pretty loyal GOP voter, and not an unpracticed political hand, my unvarnished and deadly serious advice to Republicans is 15 weeks and move on. Go where the hard core wants, and lose. My best advice always seems to be ignored. (Started as a paid political hack 36 years ago today, when I joined the RPV staff in Richmond. Another, “isn’t this where I came in?” moment.)

      1. Ken Reid Avatar
        Ken Reid

        Please allow me to educate you. Because states license providers and hospitals, clinics, etc., thay have leeway in regulating SURGERY and TREATMENTS, but cannot BAN or CURTAIL the specific drugs and devices used in these procedures as FDA PRE-EMPTS it. But FDA, by law, does not regulate the practice of medicine. So, i believe states can prohibit sex-change operations to minors, for example, but cannot say “you cannot use x prosthetic or x hormone” for a sex change operation because FDA allows it. Plus, the hormones and devices used to change one]’s gender are used for other purposes. Roe v Wade falsely created a constitutional guarantee for a medical procedure that was under state purview. I don’t believe any Supreme Court has done that for any medical procedure

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          so bottom line? States CAN?

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Let’s see, people below the age of 18 should not be able to purchase weapons in the view of many and those under 21 require additional vetting before they can purchase a weapon according to a new law. Those under 18 cannot receive the death penalty or a mandatory life sentence without parole due to their immaturity. Many want to seal and erase criminal records for crimes committed under the age of 18. Those under 18 cannot generally bind themselves by contract. But they can decide they want to change the physical attributes of their bodies through chemical treatment and/or surgery. It makes no sense whatsoever.

        1. Ken Reid Avatar
          Ken Reid

          You think there’s logic to all our laws? No. legislation is often done in isolation without consideration of other laws passed. Even a scientific regulatory agency like the FDA has no choice but to enforce laws adopted by Congress (politicians and Lawyers) who thought better than the science. I can go on and on about this topic…

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          …….parental consent?

          1. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            i guess states can require that for abortions, sex change operations, whatever.

          2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            And U.S. law prohibits female circumcision of minors even with parental consent.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Catholic Ireland or Post Roe v. Wade America?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lJbpVmyKgo

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Somehow I suspect that the Irish parliament passed a law, rather than rely on the outgrowth of an emanation and a penumbra. Why won’t you folks on the left address Obama’s backing off his campaign promise to see the Freedom of Choice Act become law? The basics could have been settled more than a decade ago.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        He’d never have gotten through anyway. Look at the slicing and dicing for Obamacare. And it faced repeal attempts for 5 years even after its popularity went into the +70%.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          You have absolutely no evidence that Obama, had he made the appropriate effort, and telling Democrats in Congress that he expected a bill that would protect the right to abortion or he would not address their other wants, would not have succeeded. It’s the typical leftist approach to facts that are inconsistent with their theory or rhetoric.

          And, yes, there would have been attempts to repeal or weaken an abortion protection law. But Democrats in the Senate would have had the ability to filibuster. Moreover, the Supreme Court that would have certainly reviewed the statute would have had a different makeup than today’s Court.

          But “hey,” Obama cannot be criticized in the eyes of the left. So, it has to be someone else’s fault.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Neither do you. July 26, 1988. The last women had to have a male cosigner for a business loan.

Leave a Reply