you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NewsJunkie[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

False shill response. The rest of the article reads:

"In Dobbs, MS Health Officer, et al. v Jackson Women’s Health, et al., the high court granted a petition to hear one specific question asking the justices to reexamine the viability standard used in three cases: Roe v. Wade in 1973, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, and Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016."

[–]NewsJunkie[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The viability standard is why Roe v. Wade allowed abortion. Remove viability as the standard and there's no reason to stop bans on abortions.

Here's a well-researched article on Roe v. Wade:

Here's a key section of Roe that people, for some strange reason, don't know even exists: Roe "mandates that abortion be legal after 'viability' when needed to protect 'the health of the mother.' Viability, or the stage of development where humans are capable of living outside the womb with medical care, begins around 22 weeks gestation and extends to birth."

So, essentially, if this new ruling strikes out viability as a means for abortion, then Roe v. Wade is rendered useless.