I left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.
A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)
But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.
I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?
A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)
But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.
I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?