The Supreme Jokort … (“joke-court”) doesn’t even realize that the law is, on its face, unconstitutional. That’s not because of Roe v. Wade. It’s because Texas taxes citizens and residents of another state, when they’ve done nothing in Texas and are without contacts with Texas. It’s called an “Interstate Commerce” violation. And, Texas has NO right to impose burdens on another state for which Texas does not pay. And, then, there’s the due process and equal protection of the law, at the tail end of the dialog. And, let’s not forget vexatious litigation. Or, how about lack of privity, assuming some sort of social contract. And, what possible standing does anyone have with regard to all of the conceptions that have not occurred? I don’t get it. Or, what standing does anyone have with regard to an impregnation with which he or she was not involved, directly or indirectly. Sorry, I don’t get it. Free to not get vaccinated, based on personal preference of one’s own body … even if it affects another. Yet, free to sue someone else based on who does get pregnant, knowingly or unknowingly, and decides to not bring a human being into existence based on their action … or even the action of another that’s opposed to their intention. I just can’t connect the dots.
Fairness doesn’t mean inequality is legal.