So petitioner points out that in all 50 states, you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after abortion [Ed. note: She misspoke; she meant birth], and I think the shortest period might be 48 hours if I?m remembering the data correctly. It seems to me, seen in that light, both Roe and Casey emphasize the burdens of parenting. And insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced 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 seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is without question an infringement on bodily autonomy, for which we have another context like vaccines. However, it doesn?t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden, and so it 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 conclusion. Why didn?t you address the safe haven laws, and why don?t they matter?
I believe the above is the question she was asking the pro-Roe lawyer to answer. It in no way compares to a Justice quoting wildly wrong numbers in her questioning.
In this case it's not about sides, but about someone being so wrong on something they might otherwise use in making a decision.
