This abhorrent statute should unite all the Supreme Court justices—indeed all Americans who care about the rule of law—in condemning the Texas statute and the attitude toward the law it
4 comments

Welcome to Dissenter

The Comment Section of the Internet
www.newsweek.com
texas-abortion-ban-unconstitutional-opinion-1625982

So following Dershowitz's logic then slavery should still be the law of the land because it was legal and there was over 100 years of super-precedent for it and plantation owner's planned and organized their lives around the institution of slavery.

loading...

So suddenly the Supreme Court CARE about Constitution and Justices. Oh wait, they only care about THEIR Constitution and Justices. I am 1000% sure the Constitution never talk about Abortion and more likely oppose it if you take the God part of it literally .

loading...

Question: If it is my body my choice with respect to what goes comes out of one's body why is it not my body my choice with respect to what goes in? I have no desire to inject an mRNA death jab. Why can't that be enough? Why do the same assholes that like to drone on about a woman's "right to choose" cannot respect everyone's right to choose whether they want to take a gene therapy?

loading...

"Apparently, Texas law makers have little respect for precedent or for preserving the role of the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter of the Constitution." Nor does Dershowitz, who certainly isn't neutral, or have any respect for scientific fact in the set point time detection, and arbitrary "legal" designation of the infant's kill zone cut off point. In the determination of legal matters, ethics and the moral basis of decisions can not be disregarded, and should not be displaced by Judge's personal preferences in the acceptance of legal criteria for those determinations. In the instance of determining things about human life, and when it begins, the ability of science to pinpoint infant development, such as heartbeat detection, increases over time, as in all things science, and with advancements in accuracy laws MUST CHANGE to consider their new facts. Dershowitz's preference is for the continuation of abortion, and it shows in his anti-pro-life OPINIONS, but his opinions are irrelevant, he is a reactionary to decades old science that is no longer relevant, or precedent in answering the question of when does human life begin. Science's answer, that was disregarded even at the time of Roe vs Wade, is when the 23 chromosomes of male connect with 23 chromosomes of the female and cell division begins__human life begins, which is scientifically irrefutable, even if Alan Dershowitz has not regard for science, the Supreme Court should.

loading...
Log In
Dissenter
connecting...