those cases adhered to precedent in brown v. board, adhered to plessy and adhered to atkins and adhered to lochner. if the court had done that in those cases, you know, the country would be a much different place. all right, so the newest justice trump appointee amy coney barrett, she actually questioned whether so-called safe haven laws which aimed to protect abandoned newborns have now distinguished the burden of pregnancy from the burden of parenthood. watch. it s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of mother hood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? it seems to me it focuses the burden much more narrowly. it doesn t seem to follow that pregnancy and parenthood are all part of the same burden. so it seems to me the choice more focused would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the
welcome. right here women are not welcome, women who exist as vessels for a fetus is not welcome here the u.s. supreme court heard about reversing abortion rights since the modern movement to ban abortions began. one justice amy coney barrett that seemed to suggestion adoption could relief the need for adoptions because safe haven laws allow women to choose not to be a parent. it s always focused on the consequences of parenting and obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws
motherhood would hinder women s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? it doesn t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden. she says mothers can give up their babies for adoption pretty much immediately and they don t need to be parents. what do you make that have argument? well, that woman still has to remember that she had a child and that she couldn t take care of it and then she wonders the rest of her life. it s the double sword, either way you go. either way, it s not good. but you also put a lot more burden on the woman having to carry that child full term and in giving that baby up, and that s hard. that s hard on your body, your
light both roe and casey emphasize the burdens of parenting insofar as you and many of your focus on the ways in which forced parenting and forced motherhood with hinder women s access to the workplace and the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem. it focuses the burden narrowly. there is without question an infringement on bodily autonomy which we have in other contexts that vaccines. however, it doesn t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are part of the same burden. so seems to me that the choice more focused would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at
the burden by giving up the child for adoption and she refers to safe haven laws which provide a safe haven for a new mother to safely offer a child for adoption. it s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem and focuses the burden more narrowly and it doesn t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and parent hood are all part of the same burden. now, as a legal matter that claim has an extreme premise that basically abides the court s long-standing precedent that maybe it is not a burden for the government to require women to carry this to term because they can later give the then baby up for adoption. republican justices claim they