>

I agree, but I'd suspect they would interpret the 9th using the whole "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" baloney they mentioned in Dobbs.
All we need are rational, reasonable judges on the bench, judges who rule based on the law, not Right Wing fanatics, raised and funneled through Extreme Right Wing cult organizations like the Federalist Society who twist, distort, contradict or outright ignore the law altogether to achieve preordained Right Wing decisions.
You do that; you get fair, reasonable individuals on the bench, and women's rights, consumer rights, environmental rights will be protected, fairly. >

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
I don’t see how this protects abortion rights, especially when the court is filled with originalists. I guess the argument could be saying forced pregnancy is “involuntary servitude” but good luck convincing the courts that >

The argument is actually way more tenuous than that. Apparently, it's that because slaves were forced to reproduce to put more people into slavery, that the 13th Amendment grants  Black women full constitutional authority to control their own reproduction. And because Black women have that right, the 14th amendment grants that right to everyone. >

This makes more sense, but I don’t think the courts will agree unfortunately >

The SC are a corrupt joke, I'll bet their decision is made before they even hear the argument >

“Here, the ‘issue’ before the Court in Dobbs was not whether any provision of the Constitution provided a right to abortion,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Rather, the question before the Court in Dobbs was whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provided such a right.” >

Silly Republicans, you're not going to stop abortions in the least bit. As I write this, hundreds of women are ordering abortion herbs as we speak on Amazon >

As is their choice. >

They should shut up until we have a favorable Supreme Court, if a case makes it's way up before then, it just makes things worse. >

Abortion is not protected by any part of the constitution under that supreme court. Whatever argument you could make will be refused regardless of its merit. No point even trying. >

Jeez. The Third Amendment has a better chance of protecting abortion rights than the 13th. Don't quarter fetuses in a womb without the owner's permission! >

I'd have gone with the 9th, but there's also the 1st and 8th too. 
Unfortunately, the majority in SCOTUS don't see women as people so to them the only amendment that applies to women is the 19th, and that one really works best only in tandem with the voting rights act of 1965 which has been gutted by the supreme court. >

Ahh yes..parenting = slavery/ involuntary servitude.
Quite the message to put out there >

I'm really dubious about this argument, but to clarify it apparently the argument is that since female slaves were forced to reproduce, and the 13th Amendment made that practice unconstitutional, it gave black women constitutional control over whether or not to abort a pregnancy. And if black women have that right then so do other women under the 14th amendment. 
So it's not really saying "parenting is slavery", it's more like "former slaves are constitutionally allowed to choose to have abortions so that right also extends to everybody else." (Again, I'm really skeptical about this argument, it sounds like a super stretch.) >

Except SCOTUS already said no provisions of the Constitution provide an implicit right to abortion.
Here's what they wrote in Dobbs: "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision". This is the Court that claims that they want any implicit right to be "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition".
I don't agree, but I'm saying that this is their declared stance on the issue as a matter of fact. They've already suggested their answer to the question proposed by the judge in this article. >

Which is horseshit when the 9th amendment exists. SCOTUS is wrong.