[troyvit]

I can think of one person who said that:

> The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed[?]

[1] https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/

(edited to add forgotten source)

[bobkazamakis]

>I'm sure you can find someone making that argument

> I can think of one person who said that:

congratulations, really pushing the boundaries of what is possible here.

[troyvit]

Yep I misread your comment. My apologies.

[interestica]

Did you forget to actually link to source?

[troyvit]

Yep I did. Thanks for catching. I added it.

[interestica]

Thanks for link! Really interesting added context for an outsider (Canadian)