Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
who knows? i think it's a good sign to some extent, that they're also considering the merits, because there's no way under roe v. wade that they can uphold this texas law without completely gutting and destroying roe v. wade, right? they have to take it away completely in order to uphold the texas ban. and they really already have a case pending, as pete mentioned, that's going to be heard december 1, where they're going to decide a less aggressive restriction on abortion rights. so it would make no sense to me, this is the good news piece to me, i think, it would make no sense to take this case up for the purpose of overturning roe v. wade. that's how i feel. >> correct me if i'm wrong here, i'm kind of trying to get my head around this. this is exactly what abortion rights activists kind of wanted, right, to challenge the constitutionality of this law, because it very well may be