How did that work out for you?
Uh, pretty well, I guess?
Why do you think no fewer than 13 states had abortion-banning “trigger” laws ready to go if and when Roe v Wade was overturned, strongly lobbied for it to be overturned, and then implemented those draconian laws immediately thereafter? Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Your opinion that abortion should be a state issue may be sincere. Theirs obviously were not. They were hypocritical political tactics.
I’m genuinely not following you, here: it’s like you’re saying that some states were waiting to do this as soon as Roe got struck down — and other states weren’t, because the opposite was true there — and I’m thinking: uh, yeah; I thought that’s what everyone in this thread was on the same page about? That some states are keen on passing such laws, and some aren’t, and that’s why leaving it up to the states would reasonably be expected to produce results that differ by state? Like, it’d actually be downright weird to ask why some states had those laws ready to go, given that the whole point is that different states may well opt to do different things?
My read on that was that the majority of people who supported states’ rights supported it because they wanted to outlaw abortion. Not because of some abstract notion of states’ rights.
Again, it’s very significant that 13 states already had draconian “trigger laws” in place. But beyond that, the fallacy here is the assumption that pro-choice and draconian abortion prohibitions have equal logical validity. They do not.
Roe v Wade was a difficult attempt to strike a balance between two radically different beliefs, one of which was based on logic and the rights and freedoms of the individual, and the other of which was based on religious zealotry and blatantly unscientific bullshit. To put it in perspective, in Canada the Supreme Court overturned abortion laws for some of the same reasons as Roe v Wade, but went much further and overturned them completely and unconditionally.
The “states’ rights” thing here is mainly premised on the belief that Congress and the US Supreme Court will enact compromises between the two ideologies, whereas if left up to the state – typically a very red state in this belief system – it can go nuts with draconian anti-abortion laws.
States that don’t have these wingnut anti-abortion views typically don’t have strong positions on state vs federal regulation because they generally believe there shouldn’t be much regulation over abortion at all. Incredibly, they believe that women are entitled to control over their own bodies! This is obviously a fundamental right, not a difference of opinion between Massachusetts and Texas.
This. The “state’s rights” concept has always been about “right wing states can abuse people as they please, and everyone else will be forced by the federal government to go along with them whenever the right controls it”. And laws against abortion have no other purpose than to terrorize, persecute and kill women; which is why the Right loves them so much. Every time a woman suffers or dies because of such laws, it’s a victory for the Right.
It’s just easier to implement such persecution on a state-by-state basis.
That’s an interesting statement. I’m not being adversarial here, but I would like to understand your reasoning behind it?
Not many polar bear attacks in New York City.
But more muggers, perhaps?
Not as many as there used to be, and anyway a bit too issue-specific a discussion.
But it serves as an example of the broader issue: someone says for X thing it should be possible to treat it differently in different states, someone else retorts with “but why? everything should be the same for everyone everywhere!” And usually whoever’s claiming to be aggrieved by the what the states do (legalizing abortion; not returning runaway slaves) wants the feds to step in and override.
I have a hard time grasping this. Abortion still remains fully legal in many U.S. states, so their hammer and fund-raising thing still exists. And even in the states where it is banned, the rallying cry would be, “Those pro-choicers are trying to bring abortion back.” And even aside from abortion, they still have LGBT and their many other hammers and fundraisers to go on.
To flip it on the reverse by analogy, I never once heard a pro-LGBT person grumble after Obergefell, “Now that gay marriage is passed, we just lost an important hammer and fundraiser.”
Reported where? Context and sources matter, especially in cases like these.
I remember reading something similar, although I don’t recall where. But it wasn’t the anti-abortion movement. It was Republican groups, which may not have actually cared one bit about abrtion.
It’s a four-year-old memory. It was probably in the context of the right seeing and seething about the “rage giving” of abortion supporters in the first year after the decision. It wouldn’t have been long-lived. That article says that donations soared for a year, then dropped off in 2023.
This sort of prescriptivist definition-shuffling always strikes me as silly. Of course the US is a nation, and a democracy, as well as being a federal republic. All of those terms need specific qualifiers in order to be applied to the US with 100% precision, but that doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect to use any of them about the US.
As a nation, the US has a national government. The fact that this national government is part of a federal system which also includes state governments doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
“Federal government, not national government” is apparently the new “republic, not a democracy” in the meaningless-semantic-prescriptivism stakes.
Good uses for guns include hunting and protection from dangerous wildlife. Those are both more common in rural states.
Bad uses for guns are shooting other people. That’s more common in urban states.
So it makes more sense to have guns in rural states, but not in urban states.
The police in urban states have all the guns they want, in addition to near-cart blanche to shoot anyone they think ought to be shot. Gun control consists of making sure that all those black and brown people can’t shoot the police back. Because, ya’ know, those people can’t be trusted with guns.
But rural counties have higher rates of gun deaths.
You may disagree, but accuracy of terminally matters. We have federal courts, not national courts. A Code of Federal Regulations, not a Code of National Regulations. A Federal Register, not a National Register. And a federal government, not a national government.
Yes, of course we’re a nation. But first-and-foremost we are a federation of states. That’s what the “S” stands for in U.S.A. And each state has its own government and own constitution. If you don’t like the laws of your state, or your state government, or your state constitution, good news… you have 49 others to choose from. That’s what’s so great about the U.S.; I have a choice on which government works for me. I can choose my servants. Choice is a good thing. If your “national government” made all the laws as you seem to desire, you wouldn’t have a choice if you disagreed with its laws. Your only practical choice would be to buy a one-way plane ticket to Europe. Or wait and hope the monopoly government regime changes within your lifetime.
You may want to take heed in this old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.”