'Non-reproductive rights'
[
{
"name": "Top Stories Video Pair",
"insertPoint": "7",
"component": "17087298",
"parentWrapperClass": "fdn-ads-inline-content-block",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "1"
}
]
Editor:
Despite what many in media, including The Journal, are now repeating (at least eight times in "After Roe," June 30, alone), there have been absolutely no restrictions placed on anyone's "reproductive rights" by the U.S. Supreme Court or any other legal entity here lately. Examples of reproductive rights being quashed would include things like forced sterilization and China's One Child Policy. This is not what is occurring with the recent overturning of Roe. It is in fact non-reproductive choices that are being taken away. Distinctions like this are important, especially if, as The Journal reports, abortion rights will «literally be on the ballot in California in November with a measure that ... would enshrine ‹reproductive freedom› in the state Constitution.»
Effective legal arguments and laws are funny like that.
D. Lamar Hudson, Briceland
Related Stories
-
After Roe
Jun 30, 2022
Comments (2)
Showing 1-2 of 2
Latest in Mailbox
Readers also liked…
-
The Elf on the Shelf is Begging You Not to Put Him Out This Year
- Dec 8, 2022
-
A PG&E Plea
- Feb 23, 2023
