It doesn't say that. Which is why you leave the issue to democratic institutions, i.e. state legislatures rather than pretend the Constitution says something it does not.
Fine. Then I DEMAND that a law be passed that ALL males 16 years old be MANDATED to get a vasectomy. Once they can prove to a tribunal that they can support their progeny THEN they can petition it be reversed.
It makes more sense since a female can only get pregnant about once a year but a male can impregnate any female he is intimate with.
Since the male can impregnate any female and a female, once pregnant can't get pregnant again until after the child is born, it stands to reason that the MALE is more dangerous and this law should be passed to stop abortions.
If that is your argument, where does the constitution say that corporations are people and have the right to First Amendment? When isn't that left to the state legislatures?
That conundrum is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has lost respect, as well as the curious number of 5-4 party-line rulings. A well-argued ruling should be nonpartisan and have more than the nominal majority.
It doesn't say that. Which is why you leave the issue to democratic institutions, i.e. state legislatures rather than pretend the Constitution says something it does not.
Fine. Then I DEMAND that a law be passed that ALL males 16 years old be MANDATED to get a vasectomy. Once they can prove to a tribunal that they can support their progeny THEN they can petition it be reversed.
It makes more sense since a female can only get pregnant about once a year but a male can impregnate any female he is intimate with.
Since the male can impregnate any female and a female, once pregnant can't get pregnant again until after the child is born, it stands to reason that the MALE is more dangerous and this law should be passed to stop abortions.
If that is your argument, where does the constitution say that corporations are people and have the right to First Amendment? When isn't that left to the state legislatures?
That conundrum is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has lost respect, as well as the curious number of 5-4 party-line rulings. A well-argued ruling should be nonpartisan and have more than the nominal majority.