[motive]

Should there be? I think this is an evolving question that would settle a number of ambiguities in the law.

If one were to die tomorrow without being an organ donor, the state still cannot compel one to give up their organs, even if it would save lives. Why should a woman’s body have less autonomy than a corpse?

On the other hand, I don’t think many people would support 39-week abortions either, absent some explicit medical necessity. At some point, which is inherently a gradient, our legal system has to afford protection to what is a viable person.

Americans have a tendency to go for the most extreme positions on everything and I think the court reversing Roe is an incredibly shortsighted decision that will cost it decades of legitimacy. The institution is more damaged now than possibly ever. Even the Chief Justice had wanted to uphold Mississippi’s law but preserve Roe, which would’ve been a much better solution than where we are today.

Extremism is a cancer destroying this country.

[InTheArena]

I agree that extremism is a cancer. I just view Roe v. Wade as the genesis of much of that cancer.

We have a system that allows for changing laws - it's called a republic. We have a system that even allows for changing the constitution.

Upholding Mississippi's law but preserving Roe is intrinsically a political decision. Politics belong with legislatures, not judges.