The answer, of course, is because the majority of Americans do not want abortion to be illegal (citecitecitecite).
So if we take a principled stance that we are advocating on behalf of ‘the people,’ we should not make abortion illegal. But if you drop it to the state level, you can outlaw abortion not only in solidly red states but also in purple and blue-trending states where voter suppression and gerrymandering render pesky things like popular opinion irrelevant to the business of legislation.
Unlike most countries, we do not have a national government. We have a federal government. We are a federation of states.
So if you don’t like the laws enacted by the state you reside in, you can move to another state. That’s the beauty of federalism: you have fifty governments to choose from.
If this RvW gets overturned, will they announce their decision in June like they usually do? Would this be a gift to the Dems in the midterms?
According to Johnny_Bravo’s cites, 60% of Americans think it should be legal, so I can’t imagine those suburban women and independents that Pubs are hoping to make inroads with next year would be too happy with the Republican party’s SC justices.
If you thought 2/3rds turnout of the eligible voters in 2020 was impressive, wait till you get a load of 90% for the midterms. The Supremes might be handing the keys to Congress to the Democrats for a decade or more if they unilaterality overturn RvW. I think they are more likely to baby-duck it, less for stare decisis as political cover.
For one thing, the state’s Hispanic population is becoming predominant, and historically that population has voted Democrat.
Also, there’s a pretty stark urban/rural divide in Texas, and the cities continue to grow, and the rural areas continue to shrink. In the 2020 presidential election, Trump only won Texas by 5.8% or so, which is remarkably low for a state reputed to be the reddest of the red.
And finally, I think a lot of what we’re seeing out of the legislature is Republican politicians pandering to their diehard supporters for 2022 primary reasons, and not trying to persuade the state as a whole.
If a majority of a state want to outlaw eating carrots because they believe carrots are sentient and killing them is murder, that’s not a good enough reason to outlaw eating carrots.
There’s a general concept out there that Texas is going purple. How much, and how fast remains to be seen.
One thing that comes to mind for me is that there are a lot of people who more or less subscribe to the philosophy of classical liberalism, and who aren’t politically engaged for the social issue aspects, but who aren’t necessarily motivated by social justice either.
Traditionally they’ve reliably voted GOP, but in recent years with the GOP’s turn to the insane hard right, they’ve been somewhat fractured; many have voted Democrat as a result. I know; I’m one of them, and a lot of my friends and acquaintances are the same way. And there are a fair number of people who have made a leftward shift after becoming aware of things like structural racism and various equity initiatives.
That’s the crux of the entire debate right there. It’s all in the definition. Some think it is murder, and should be outlawed as a result, and others think it’s not, and shouldn’t be outlawed.
I don’t know that there’s actually any middle ground to be had, with both sides so intransigent about it- any compromise is going to be seen as too much.
In the US, states have powers that the federal government doesn’t have, and the state has powers that the city and township don’t have. NYC has to ask the state for permission for all kinds of things.
The state could delegate that responsibility (to allow or outlaw abortion) to the township or the city level, but I don’t know of any state that has done so.
As a male with no children living in one of the bluest states in the country who is faithfully married to a woman age 50 who has had tubal ligation, I have as little skin in the game as it is physically possible to have. So no I’m not moving.
If I lived in a state where it was an issue, I still probably wouldn’t move since even though I support a woman’s right to choose, the cost benefit of upending my life just to make a political point that has zero chance of being noticed by the powers that are in charge of such things.
If I were a woman of reproductive age in a state where it was potentially being banned, I would have to weigh the advantages of access to easy abortion to the disruption of restarting my life in a new place. Chances are that I would decide that it would be easier to temporarily travel to another state for an abortion if I needed one rather than pre-emptively move. So no there to. But since that hypothetical is so far removed from my current circumstances and so in all probability would profoundly alter my view on the abortion issue I can’t say for sure.
I’m skeptical that there are many people who move to other states purely based on politics. It’s just not practical or financially feasible for most people. Even if you care deeply about abortion, for most people it’s not even a once-in-a-lifetime event.
Don’t get me wrong, if the opportunity to move to a blue state arose, I’d take it. If my job directed me to move to a redder state, I’d decline. I’d love to be done with red-state bullshit. But as for uprooting my entire life… financially, socially, practically, I just can’t justify it based on one government policy that may never affect me, that I can work around by traveling to another state. I’ll stay where I am and keep voting for change.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be interesting to see the legal rationale.
If it is that life begins at conception, it will be fascinating to see how this might be applied to other legal issues (I’ve seen it asked if a pregnant woman can sue for child support, even before the baby is born).
If it is that there is no constitutional right to privacy, then I wonder what that would do; will any states start passing laws restricting other medical decisions or family planning matters. No more birth control in Utah, perhaps?
