But — technically - it’s not. I just get tired of seeing it described in headlines as such.
To be frank, I think the only reason it’s being proposed is, in reaction to the repeal of Roe, lefties are proposing a national proposal to make it legal everywhere and as I’ve seen it suggested - for any reason.
The current “ban” is to end it at 15 weeks. Just short of four months. Allowable before but not after.
Did I get anything wrong?
Thing is, before PP v. Casey, the trimester framework was less generous. Allowed first trimester, restricted during second, not allowed in third - and that was largely based on the idea that the fetus was viable at that point.
This was acceptable for twenty years. Why is it so terrible now that it’s being described as though it’s an outright ban?
To be frank, I think the only reason it’s being proposed is, in reaction to the repeal of Roe, lefties are proposing a national proposal to make it legal everywhere and as I’ve seen it suggested - for any reason.
The current “ban” is to end it at 15 weeks. Just short of four months. Allowable before but not after.
Did I get anything wrong?
Thing is, before PP v. Casey, the trimester framework was less generous. Allowed first trimester, restricted during second, not allowed in third - and that was largely based on the idea that the fetus was viable at that point.
This was acceptable for twenty years. Why is it so terrible now that it’s being described as though it’s an outright ban?
