comparemela.com

government has never argued that this plaintiff's status as an unaccompanied minor who enter the united states of that documentation reduces or eliminates her constitutional rights to an abortion in compliance with state law requirements. now, that is the thing that these pro-life groups were worried about, that it would be roe 2.0. it sounds like, during these arguments, the federal government did not say she doesn't have a constitutional right. it has not been seated? is that the case? >> i think it narrows the holding to this case. i believe the doj should have made that argument. we made it in the brief. it is clear to me that the constitution does not allow for an abortion to somebody that comes here illegally and doesn't have some kind of substantial tiger connection. that was never argued, we argued it. if you look at the dissent, they picked up the argument, i think it is something that hopefully in the future, the doj will argue. >> shannon: there is a class action lawsuit that the aclu -- this broke off, my understanding

Related Keywords

Abortion ,Government ,Us ,Rights ,Status ,Compliance ,Documentation ,Unaccompanied Minor ,State Law Requirements ,Plaintiff ,Case ,It ,Right ,Groups ,Thing ,Arguments ,Roe 2 0 ,2 0 ,It Doesn T ,Kind ,Doj ,Argument ,Constitution ,Brief ,Holding ,Somebody ,Shannon Bream ,Something ,Aclu ,Understanding ,Class Action Lawsuit ,Tiger Connection ,Dissent ,

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.