No. of Recommendations: 1
The number of abortions in the US after viability is vanishingly small. Around 1%. Without checking, a good portion of those are likely to be desired pregnancies where some health issues have arisen, making the abortion an undesired but medically necessary procedure.
That is the **last** place you want to start government meddling in abortion decisions.Sure, but this is not what Roe decided - from
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-...:
The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that:
- the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.
- In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.
- In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.My point is that Harris refused to clarify that although reinstating Roe as the law of the land was the first thing she wanted done, she also - most likely - ideally wants there to be no restrictions whatsoever on any decision reached by a woman and her doctors and family on whether to have an abortion or not.
For the record, I agree. But I suppose coming out and saying unambiguously that she wants no restrictions would lose her some votes.
