There are few things funnier than watching someone google and cite law that they don't understand.<quoted text>
Holding and Rule (Blackmun)
Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mothers behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a womans right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.
Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant womans health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
No. The natural termination of Roes pregnancy did not render her suit moot.
Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.
Game, set, match
Golf clap for your google-foo
Chuckle for your inability to understand hat his doesn't even address come chain pure addressing. In our original statement that I replied to, which you quoted, you stated "the UNITED STAES, you know that country we live in.....bla blah blah woman's privacy after sex"
While your response sounds great to a retard, it in fact ignores he DECADES of restrictions on abortion and rights given to the fetus which have developed since.
As I have stated, and supported, a woman's freedom to kill her unborn child has been, and will continue to be, resticted o the point of impossibility.