And if they take away a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions at the federal level? I think that's far more of a direct threat than what local politicians are doing within the confines of the five boroughs of NYC. I don't think that they can see the forest through the trees. That's the joke.
Maybe, if the abortion debate wasn't more complicated than a simple issue of privacy.
And what I'm saying about Palin is absolutely true. She did not know that Roe v Wade was about privacy. When asked during an interview, she advocated overturning Roe v Wade with one breath, and with the next stated that she absolutely believed in the right to privacy, with none of her misfiring synapses making a connection between the two. It was absolutely stunning.
Yeah, not buying that. It was ruled within the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean the ruling makes a lot of sense in that context. It's not an especially strong ruling, and the argument I'm sure they'd make is that the so-called "right to privacy" wouldn't apply to murder either. Thus the complexity of the situation that's not being recognized.
no subject
Maybe, if the abortion debate wasn't more complicated than a simple issue of privacy.
And what I'm saying about Palin is absolutely true. She did not know that Roe v Wade was about privacy. When asked during an interview, she advocated overturning Roe v Wade with one breath, and with the next stated that she absolutely believed in the right to privacy, with none of her misfiring synapses making a connection between the two. It was absolutely stunning.
Yeah, not buying that. It was ruled within the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean the ruling makes a lot of sense in that context. It's not an especially strong ruling, and the argument I'm sure they'd make is that the so-called "right to privacy" wouldn't apply to murder either. Thus the complexity of the situation that's not being recognized.