From: "Gregg N" 

I don't agree. If the constitution says you have right x, a law cannot be
passed that says, okay you have right x but only if you also do y. In this
case, the original law allowed for y provided it was not an undue burden.
Alito thought it was not, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Gregg

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:4366b677{at}w3.nls.net...
> He didn't he decided the case on the basis that there is no provision in
> the
> constitution that addresses this policy matter and therefore it is NOT for
> courts and judges to decide but for elected legislatures to decide.
>
> Any other decision would be activist, and also not supported by the text
> of
> the constitution.
>
> Gary
>
> "Gregg N"  wrote in message
> news:43669e3a{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> news:v27dm1pc6d4fmhb5i6vu3jgfk3mjnocms4{at}4ax.com...
>> > Re the case about a married woman's husband being notified prior to an
>> > abortion being performed, isn't the baby as much his as hers?  So why
>> > shouldn't he at least be informed?   Granted, I suppose this reasoning
>> > wouldn't apply in the case of a woman aborting a child whose father is
>> > not the husband but as a society do we really want to support that?
>> >
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5