At least these developments here are a good thing to see, though I wonder why some of the larger entities waited so long to get into the conversation on these issues - which now includes 豺狼熊兄弟 fits better than 金融家 who muzzle and call it quarantine.
Adding this because the photograph makes for interesting information on who thought their decisions belonged in a woman's uterus to start with. Also because - oh my, how's parking? Everybody still Not Dead?
Also, in the midst of a rerun that covers rhinoplasty and brings to mind similarly casual procedures, adding these articles here because TL; DR (to be fair, it is lengthy) B is based on A, but A is based on something invalid - checking a precedent's precedent and finding it lacking (IIITC, several precedents on which A was based "were overruled in toto," removing decisions that didn't support A). It looks like a lot of crossing and dotting (scrutiny not required for "a medical procedure only one sex can undergo" unless regulations around it are "designed to [cause] discrimination"), historical examples (what, eight centuries?), and reluctance to support a right not mentioned in the foundation document.
This is getting long, so I'm moving it - one of the earlier articles used the phrase "predictably vitriolic;" what is abortion but dominion over a body not one's own, especially considering the ability to define women was discarded in the first place? (There's a mention on "sex-based classification" in the decision document that addresses both writer and cited source of 'predictably vitriolic.' And something else just occurred to me - if the argument is that childbirth is labor that requires compensation, using surrogates as an example, surrogates are the last people to want an abortion for non-therapeutic purposes.)
The people in question both went back to the absolute basics and worked with precedent, though I can understand why the hysterical (word origin!) coverage is perfectly valid to those used to being shown and fed plastic.
Ending with this because curios.