Oh, wait.

First a caveat: I know that the current SCOTUS doesn't give a shit what the Constitution actually says. I'm just really curious if this argument has been made.

The fourteenth amendment says

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says "born" not "conceived". Doesn't this negate the five Handmaid justices' argument giving equal protection to the "unborn"?

Now, just to be clear...


1. Please don't tell me how naive I am. I know it has no chance. Just wishin' and hopin'.

2. I'm sure those lawyers out there can pick this apart like maggots on a corpse. That's fine. I'm just trying to help.

I have a chromosome abnormality. It runs in my family who all live in Texas. This decision is going to directly affect my family! It could kill people I love. This is not a hypothetical situation.

"Suprised she doesn't just yell 'Squirrel' and then run away."

compared with Hutchinson's excellent recall of the whole day. Guess she's just smarter than him.

When a woman was having a difficult delivery to the point where doctors had to decide whether to save EITHER the woman or the baby, they would go out to the waiting room and ask the husband/father which he preferred for them to save.

My guess is that the Handmaids' Five on SCOTUS don't see a problem with this.

on edit:

or this


(thanks to BlueGreenLady)