Subject: Re: Harris on abortion
The number of abortions in the US after viability is vanishingly small. Around 1%. Without checking, a good portion of those are likely to be desired pregnancies where some health issues have arisen, making the abortion an undesired but medically necessary procedure.

That is the **last** place you want to start government meddling in abortion decisions.

Sure, but this is not what Roe decided - from https://www.history.com/topics...:

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that:
- the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.
- In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.
- In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

My point is that Harris refused to clarify that although reinstating Roe as the law of the land was the first thing she wanted done, she also - most likely - ideally wants there to be no restrictions whatsoever on any decision reached by a woman and her doctors and family on whether to have an abortion or not.

For the record, I agree. But I suppose coming out and saying unambiguously that she wants no restrictions would lose her some votes.