States <i>ought not</i> ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.<p>This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.<p>Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
Abortion is absolutely an issue of personal autonomy which deserves Constitutional protection. I hope this ruling can help serve as an impetus for reform. We really need a Constitutional Convention, but an amendment would be progress.
>No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.
>Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate<p>Despite the possibility of second thoughts, this is still very worrying for constitutional rights in general. The chances of other important cases for individual rights like Griswold v. Connecticut being overturned just increased greatly.
Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
Not sure this makes much of a difference. With the hurdles put in place by many state legislatures, it's kind of been in "states rights" territory for some time now.
If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body.<p>To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicrous, and sad.