Historically because they lost the war they started with a Republican President and control it because they were begged to come back by a certain strategy (as you know).
Abortion is not something males- like myself- should have any voice in. Just the Female in question, plus of course input from Medical professionals (male or female). By no means should it be decided by Male politicians.
I think the potential father (if there’s one in the picture) should have a voice. A very small voice, and definitely nothing even approaching a veto, but I don’t think it’s right to say the potential father should have absolutely no say.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply @Max_S. My point is that you can define a logical framework of governance that still fails to serve it’s people efficiently.
60-70 years to enshrine a right is far too long in the 21st century. People are better educated today, better able to understand complexity. Do we really need to spend the the next six decades grinding through the process to eek out the right for physician assisted suicide, right to marry, right for birth control for unmarried men?
Arguably the amendment process is broken. I doubt there is a single issue that 75% of the states would agree on. But what about the people they represent? I assert that if you held a national referendum on abortion and asked voters when should it be legal (from 0 to 40 weeks), the result would be different than the current state of the law.
I am basing this assertion on the first graph here:
Letting states decide these very important issues is one thing, but what happens when they attempt fail to recognize or interfere with other states? Is the justice system going to resolve these disputes faithfully?
This poll shows American’s faith in checks-and-balances has dropped 12% since December 2024. The answer can’t be “I’m sorry our system is not working for you all, but that’s how it was written 250 years ago and our hands are tied.”