[flagged]
That being said, regardless of anyone's political stance, you saying 'because you made bad decisions' is inflammatory, and clearly based on the assumption that the pregnancy was a result of fully consensual sex.
Don't be that guy.
You're going to be hard-pressed to find a reasonable, thinking individual who would not allow for abortion exemptions for rape / incest / endangerment of the mother.
We're on Hacker News. A place where - supposedly - thinking people comment.
You "Don't be that guy."
It shouldn't even be necessary for me to have had to type this.
If you’re argument hinges on “reasonable, thinking” individuals, and you’re claiming that Alabama law didn’t meet that standard, then I would argue your “thinking” standard is completely irrelevant. The only relevant criteria is what makes it into law and affects people.
Well, no. It codified roughly what the public thought was appropriate at the time - the stable achievable policy equilibrium. And in the past 50 years, public sentiment has remained mostly unchanged; it's just trended a tiny bit towards more permissiveness around abortion.
See the graph displaying Gallup's public polling results here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-has-public-opinion-a....
> Two years after the court’s decision, 54 percent of U.S. adults said they supported abortion under certain circumstances and another 21 percent said abortion always should be legal, according to Gallup polling from 1975, while 22 percent of Americans said it should be illegal.
> By 2018, Gallup pollsters found little change [...]
Do you need a specific law protecting the right to throw a barbecue, own a dog, or read books on dangerous topics? No, because the Constitution is a framework which broadly allows actions by people, and carves out specific things that the government has control over.
They'll sure warp the bounds of Federal Government jurisdiction through the interstate commerce clause though.