I guess I’d say I’m neutral on the issue on whether it should be addressed federally or at the state level.
What I do believe is that it should, in general, be decided legislatively (or at least by state-wide referenda) rather than in a nation-wide federal court decision.
I think what we have seen is that, in large, even relatively conservative states (Ohio, Florida, Missouri) are not willing to be hard-line on abortion access. While more liberal states basically have enshrined Roe doctrine as state law.
Will there still be states like Texas, Alabama, etc that will make life hell for pregnant women? Yes, of course. But that’s sort of what a federal government allows for - some states will always be more conservative than others.
Now, I do believe that Federal law on the issue of abortion access would be Constitutional, and I would absolutely support minimum-access laws that would require states like Texas to allow certain types of abortion regardless of state law. Also federal laws around the distribution of abortion medication across state lines (prohibiting state prosecution of such).
Some things do make sense as state issues. For instance, firearms: The amount of guns that makes sense in a rural, low-density state like Montana or Alaska is different than the amount that makes sense in an urban, dense state like Illinois or New York.
Abortion is not such an issue. It’s the same everywhere.
No, and I would move out of a state that did that. Yes, I understand that many people can’t do that, which is why I also support federal law that would enshrine at least some abortion access in all states.
Abortion access is an issue where different people (within reason) can have disagreements about where to draw the line. Viability, exceptions for rape/incest, late-term access (with or without risk to the life/health of the mother), parental notification, waiting periods, licensing requirements.
I tend to think that allowing jurisdictions to draw some of these lines in different places is OK. Again, within reason.
I acknowledge that there are many people of both sides that find my middle-groundism abhorrent. I get it. If abortion=murder than any access is repugnant. If any restriction on access is a violation of bodily autonomy, then that restriction is repugnant.
The USA has more or less since its inception been in tension between two rather irreconcilable principles, and has perpetually struggled to find the balance between them:
First, the idea of “liberties” or “natural rights”– things held to be inherent to peoples’ natural tendency towards “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. That people only suffer government at all because it appears to be the only viable alternative to a state of Hobbesian savagery. That in the words of the Declaration of Independence, people look to government to “secure” those rights; and that people are right to oppose any government despotic enough to become counter-productive to that quest.
On the other hand there is the principle technically termed the “Police Power” of the State: the general authority of government to regulate, restrict or prohibit virtually anything whatsoever by due process of law. This is more or less what government has to be about; a government impotent to enforce laws and maintain its own existence would become a nonentity.
As a rhetorical device the Founding Fathers had laid the blame for their grievances against King George III, but by that time the British monarch was largely a figurehead. Almost everything the colonials complained about were duly passed Acts by a properly seated British Parliament, which in theory IS the absolute sovereign of the British Empire; empowered to enact anything, limited only by the consciences of the M.P.s.
After the American Revolution, the new Federal government was dominated by the Federalists who were hardcore strong-government advocates. They went on record as stating that the People had no right to oppose or protest a duly passed federal law, and that the People’s only proper recourse was to vote in different representatives in the next election. The Federalist regime infamously passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which virtually granted the privilege of Lèse-majesté to the Federal government, the First Amendment be damned. Passed in 1798 and allowed to expire in 1800, it came too early for the 1803 Madison v Marbury decision that held that a law could be declared unconstitutional.
Whether you believe that abortion should be banned or allowed, many people held the opinion that Roe v. Wade was judicially problematic. That after decades when no one had questioned the authority of government to pass morality laws including banning abortion, in an era characterized by a rebellion against long-held social and sexual mores the “right to privacy” was in the words of one critic “pulled out of Justice Harry Blackman’s ass” for the ad-hoc purpose of striking down anti-abortion laws. It was the perception right or wrong of judicial activism, of legislating from the bench, that rubbed so many people the wrong way.
To point to a document that was framed in an era where women’s rights were denied to us to justify further denying us our rights is horrendous.
Per the dissenting opinion:
Of course, ‘people’ did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did. So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women’s liberty, or for their capacity to participate as equal members of our Nation.”
I mean really, there’s no excuse for being an originalist in this case.
I am not favor of “abortion being left to the states”, but as I see it, people who want this are OK with the outcome of states (possibly every state) outlawing abortion. They understand that a federal abortion ban probably isn’t achievable, so by saying “let’s leave it to the states”, they get to pretend that they’re neutral on the matter, knowing that abortion will get savaged in most red states, and will be targeted in blue states. And their feelings about abortion going away entirely would range somewhere from neutral to ecstatic.
I simply cannot find a way to trust anyone who knows that abortion can be the difference between life and death for a wanted pregnancy gone wrong, yet still act content to stroke their beards while having have a morally detached conversation about the meaning of federalism. In a way that’s even more depraved than the honest objections people make about abortion (kills babies, or women shouldn’t sleep around so much, or Jesus hates it, or I just don’t like it).
The federal constitution is a very thin document that’s silent on most practical matters. That doesn’t mean that every unmentioned matter automatically gets kicked down to the states.
Urm, well if you believe in strictly enumerated powers (what the Federalists tried to claim when they insisted a Bill of Rights wasn’t needed), that’s exactly what it means.
Men’s rights are federally protected, women’s rights are a matter for the state. Because women are and should remain second class citizens. It’s just a natural extension of the patriarchy that dominated during the framing of the US Constitution. It’s also how laws that protect women’s rights have more or less gone throughout history. We still live in a country where some states make it okay to rape children and force them into marriage. That’s the beauty of states’ rights. They allow for the preservation of male dominance.
This is what so many people fail to recognise. The US is not a nation, not a democracy, it is a federation of many states with a general agreement, the constitution. All rules not specically outlined it the constution are left to the states to decide. That is the way it works. The Federal government was intentonaly left weak.
Not at all. Matters aren’t the same things as powers. Federal code is full of matters that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, yet are successfully argued as falling under one federal power or another.
Absolutely true and recognized as far back as McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819). But that said it doesn’t mean that the federal government can legislate on anything that catches its interest, there has to be a legitimate argument that a matter DOES fall under a designated federal power.
The Founding Fathers intended for the nation to be a loose federation of sovereign states. They intended this because they lacked experience. Now, two and a half centuries of experience later, it’s become clear that that doesn’t work. The federal government has gained more power over the years because it had to, because it can’t be any other way.
The US was an early adopter of democracy, and that’s good, but the drawback is that we got the buggy beta-test version of democracy.
Yeah, early on they had to revamp how the Vice-President was chosen because the original setup presumed that everyone would be mature enough to not let partisan interests get in the way.
There are so many federal laws I don’t really know how to parse this. A lot of federal laws have been made that exist outside of a strict reading of the constitution, have they not? Where does the authority to make those laws come from?
Very true. Or, IOW, claiming abortion should be a state issue is a version of “how to say you’re against abortion without saying you’re against abortion”. The “states’ rights” thing regarding abortion was mainly in support of overturning Roe v Wade so that red states could go nuts with the anti-abortion laws that they had all ready to go.
When it comes to enforcing their ideology, some radicals have no principles whatsoever. Some states that have enacted draconian prohibitions against abortion have also enacted blatantly unconstitutional prohibitions against traveling out of state to obtain an abortion, a clear violation of several articles of the Constitution, most notably the 14th Amendment. They just don’t care.
Well, then, I must be doing it wrong, because I voted pro-choice in my state’s referendum on the matter, after I cheered the Supreme Court decision that prompted the state to put it on the ballot; should I have voted the other way?