That is, in fact, still unclear because it dodges the very meat of the question, which is whether or not abortions should be legal. This is like saying you don't want drugs to be criminalised but without stating whether they should be legalised. It leaves both in a state of legislative limbo, where abortions are not illegal, but not expressly allowed, enshrined, protected, or otherwise entitled under the law. This might still mean that if someone wants an abortion they may still need to travel elsewhere or get a back alley abortion with less than safe methods.
To keep the drug analogy, this is like decriminalisation of drugs where people may not be expressly prosecuted for drugs, but they can still only be accessed via trafficking and black market methods, leaving those suffering from addiction at the mercy of dealers and those who want to take drugs again at the mercy of dealers who will unscrupulously sell drugs cut with literal poison because there's no oversight or legally enforced standards for production.
The same applies here. I don't know how hard it is for Liz to just say "I support safe, legal abortions for whoever wants it, even if I personally would never avail of those services", but that's the issue here, she's just constantly circling and skirting endlessly around the crux of the argument saying everything but the relevant part, which is why people are getting pissed off about it.
No, not necessarily. If something isn't specifically enshrined it will need to be decided by courts and a legal precedent set. Even then, it's not a codified law as such, just a legal cutout. Which is in some ways what the status quo was in regards to RvW. The last thing anyone needs is to consult a lawyer as to whether or not their necessary medical procedure is legal. There could be a case made that the wording of a law that explicitly defines abortion as "not illegal" rather than "legal" would mean it's legal, but I'd have to ask what the purpose of such a law would be. Ultimately, what activists want is a codified law that unequivocally grants access to reproductive healthcare, including abortions, etc, not a legal grey area to be determined by the whims of a court and the specific biases of a judge
yeah lol. anything else is legalistic pedantry. she specifically mentions the prosecution of abortion in the tweet. people in the habit of reading tweets just wanna stay :angery: about stuff
That is, in fact, still unclear because it dodges the very meat of the question, which is whether or not abortions should be legal. This is like saying you don't want drugs to be criminalised but without stating whether they should be legalised. It leaves both in a state of legislative limbo, where abortions are not illegal, but not expressly allowed, enshrined, protected, or otherwise entitled under the law. This might still mean that if someone wants an abortion they may still need to travel elsewhere or get a back alley abortion with less than safe methods.
To keep the drug analogy, this is like decriminalisation of drugs where people may not be expressly prosecuted for drugs, but they can still only be accessed via trafficking and black market methods, leaving those suffering from addiction at the mercy of dealers and those who want to take drugs again at the mercy of dealers who will unscrupulously sell drugs cut with literal poison because there's no oversight or legally enforced standards for production.
The same applies here. I don't know how hard it is for Liz to just say "I support safe, legal abortions for whoever wants it, even if I personally would never avail of those services", but that's the issue here, she's just constantly circling and skirting endlessly around the crux of the argument saying everything but the relevant part, which is why people are getting pissed off about it.
Aren't things that are not banned de facto legal?
No, not necessarily. If something isn't specifically enshrined it will need to be decided by courts and a legal precedent set. Even then, it's not a codified law as such, just a legal cutout. Which is in some ways what the status quo was in regards to RvW. The last thing anyone needs is to consult a lawyer as to whether or not their necessary medical procedure is legal. There could be a case made that the wording of a law that explicitly defines abortion as "not illegal" rather than "legal" would mean it's legal, but I'd have to ask what the purpose of such a law would be. Ultimately, what activists want is a codified law that unequivocally grants access to reproductive healthcare, including abortions, etc, not a legal grey area to be determined by the whims of a court and the specific biases of a judge
yeah lol. anything else is legalistic pedantry. she specifically mentions the prosecution of abortion in the tweet. people in the habit of reading tweets just wanna stay :angery: about stuff