The article is a bit incomplete as seen by this discussion. This is an intermediate court and was a split vote. The opinions are still interesting, including the broad concurrence that comes off at as a personal advocacy case at times. The dissent is a bit slim, not doing much to substantively respond (the state provision is somewhat different ... okay) and basically resting on abortion being illegal back in the day, changing conditions etc. not addressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!