In her dissent on the Indiana law, Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg wrote: “(A) woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother,’” she wrote, according to LifeNews.
OK. I think I’ve got it. Because the tiny human being inside the not-a-mother (who can be a man or a woman because they say so) isn’t “human” therefore the product of conception is only a “potential human” so therefore the woman (who can be a man or a woman because they say so) is only a “potential mother.” Got it?
And these people consider themselves pro-science?
May 31, 2019 at 8:36 pm
Ginsburg is the personification of the reason there are anti-semites.
June 10, 2019 at 8:49 pm
Where exactly is the verbiage tacitly supporting the "constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy …" located in the U.S. Constitution?
June 11, 2019 at 2:13 am
Right there in the "commerce clause" where everything else the federal government should have no jurisdiction over, is.