Yesterday SCOTUS started hearing arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Mississippi is trying to change the meaning of viable. In other words, they want Roe v. Wade gutted at the very least -- killed at worst. The usual babble came from the pre-TFG conservatives, but one of the newer justices had a line of questioning that was so outlandish and insulting it's really hard to believe that she ended up a judge at all. Justice Barret asked about adoption laws removing the burden of parenthood. Never mind that Safe Haven laws are to protect children and take away undue stress on the court system for these women. Safe Haven laws by and large are a product of the restricting of abortion rights and access to lower-income women. If we had more access to the medical procedure, we probably wouldn't need them at all.

And about the argument that the state is making that "parenthood is no longer an undue burden"? Correct me if I am wrong, as I have never given birth... if you give birth to a child you are scientifically a parent. There is a choice not to raise the baby, but the birthing bell is not un-rung. There is still a gestation period, doctor appoints, examine, risk, and the list goes on -- all with no medical leave to help alleviate the burdens of pregnancy.

Don't even get me started on how many kids are in the foster system that never get adopted. As Tri has said in the past, our adoption system in this country is a VERY undue burden to couples who actually want to adopt.

This conservative mindset is dangerous and makes no sense. That said, the so-called pro-life movement might get what they have been beating the drums for for decades, they might actually catch the car.
 

So what's next? I don't know... what I do know is the dog actually CATCHING the car usually doesn't end well for the dog.

&
Raine