[vitruvian_man]

While I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, I agree with this logic.

If anything, this will force conservatives to solidify and clarify their views on abortion which will allow voters to decide where they land on the spectrum of abortion rights. Whereas before, conservatives just deferred to "abortion bad. look at supreme court decision".

Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents.

[joshstrange]

As if any of the "abortion bad" people rail against it only because it was a supreme court decision. We'd see the same fervor if it was a law. I've never hear someone say "I'd be fine with abortion if it was a law instead of a supreme court decision". I'm sure you can find someone making that argument but the vast majority (90%+) don't care. In fact I bet you could say "The Roe v Wade law" and most people wouldn't bat an eyelash because they just consider it "established precedent" and law vs court decision is irrelevant for them.

[troyvit]

I can think of one person who said that:

> The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed[?]

[1] https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/

(edited to add forgotten source)

[bobkazamakis]

>I'm sure you can find someone making that argument

> I can think of one person who said that:

congratulations, really pushing the boundaries of what is possible here.

[troyvit]

Yep I misread your comment. My apologies.

[interestica]

Did you forget to actually link to source?

[troyvit]

Yep I did. Thanks for catching. I added it.

[interestica]

Thanks for link! Really interesting added context for an outsider (Canadian)

[lanstin]

Or to solidify their dedication to minority tule, specifically minority rule of one particular anti-science religious sect over the majority in a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society.

Stop educating people on biology (and in the post genome sequencing world), stop women from having reproductive control, stop LGBTQ folks from participating without fear, stop the free thinking people, stop it all in the name of that olde time religion (which itself is mostly a modern nostalgic reconstruction).

Very harmful to our ability to focus and succeed on technological transformation.

[munificent]

> a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society.

While today is certainly a dark day for the US, that paints an inaccurately rosy picture of the past to make us look even worse than we are today.

Our literacy rate has never been higher, belief in evolution is at an all time high, more people have college degrees, and access to accurate information has never been easier. We are in a short-term downswing on many axes, but the long term trends are towards science and education.

You are absolutely correct that we are more polarized than we have been since the Civil War.

[lovich]

Bud, It’s been downhill for almost the entirety of millennials and for the entirety of the younger generations lives.

22 years of downhill might be short term for a nation but it’s not for people

[munificent]

I often imagine what it must have been like to be born in the 1920s. By 1945, you would have lived through a Depression and the worst war the world had ever seen by a large margin. You would have entered a world where a few button presses could wipe out all life on Earth. You watched the rise of communism. The economy of your adulthood was worse than what you were born into. It must have seemed like the arrow of progress had permanently broken and humanity was doomed.

And yet, without knowing it, ahead of you was the Civil Rights Act, the women's liberation movement, the environmental movement and the Clean Air Act, increased support for interacial relationships, gay rights.

In the midst of that dark time, it would have been hard to believe any of those could be ahead of you. Who knows what could be ahead of us now?

[mwcampbell]

And then we ended up calling those people (born in the 1920s) the greatest generation. Sure, maybe the greatest generation is always just the generation that's about to die. But maybe the combination of hardship and opportunity also had something to do with it. So maybe we've got another "greatest generation" in the making.

[munificent]

> So maybe we've got another "greatest generation" in the making.

I have elementary age kids and it is fascinating seeing how that generation is growing up. They are so much more community oriented and caring that my generation was. They seem to understand that there are hard problems to be solved and that they won't be solved alone.

I'm filled with sorrow at the world they are inheriting, but I have a lot of optimism that they will do a better job with it than we have.

[lovich]

That sounds a lot like https://www.thesecret.tv/ and I've already discounted the idea. Everything ends eventually.

[munificent]

> That sounds a lot like https://www.thesecret.tv/

There's nothing metaphysical about observing that we have imperfect knowledge of the future and some potentialities are positive.

> I've already discounted the idea.

That's a personal choice of attitude and perspective, not an objective property of the universe. You're welcome to it, of course, but it's probably not accomplishing much for you.

> Everything ends eventually.

All the more reason to make the most of it and find the joy we can while it lasts. If it's going to end either way, why obsess about it?

[lanstin]

Bless you for that. Unironically. I keep telling my kids you have to judge things in the 100 years over hundred years metrics, but have been feeling rather bleak today, also with the midterms looking like the anti-democratic forces may well win.

Also, due to having to argue basic shit like the value of a pluralistic educated democracy when we have the physical problem of climate change bearing down and really wanting our attention. I marched for Roe v Wade in 1988 the first time, protested against stupid wars in 1986, helped build what I thought would tie humanity together in an enlighten network of discourse in the 90s as a programmer, had kids in the 2000#, and now back to Roe v Wade. Meanwhile the CO2 is 420 ppm and we haven’t got a damn Mars 100 picked out yet (Sci fi reference there). I want Red Mars with more realistic population distribution, not Parable of the Sower.

[lowercased]

> is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights?

Most Americans support some form of universal access to health care as well - some variation of single payer, or public option, or similar. That is nowhere reflected in state-level policy in many many states.

[inlined]

And most Americans support additional restrictions on access to guns like background checks, red flag laws, and banning assault rifles. Unlike abortion, those rights are being taken away from the legislators due to a horrible interpretation of the second amendment

[lanstin]

And pot. And legal protections for workers in the workplace. Still, the Dems seem like weirdly ineffective standards bearers for all this, plus the Senate and gerrymandering.

[ncr100]

The law is (was) not perfect.

The distribution of Americans who support the right to abortion is also not even.

In States where the distribution of "anti" outweighs "pro" all citizens will lose the right. So human rights are lessened in the United States.

It is a tragic day.

[fassssst]

Which is why they’re simultaneously trying to make it harder to vote.

[snoopy_telex]

> Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents.

13 states have trigger laws going into effect with this. It’s not going to move the needle at all. The red states will ban it. Blue won’t. And it’ll still be a hot button topic in the reversed states. Red candidates in blue states will want to outlaw it. Blue candidates in red states will want to allow it.

[cryptonector]

On the contrary, it may well move the needle if Republicans overplay their hand and piss off the electorate.

[babypuncher]

> Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents.

One would hope, but they have only been veering further to the right on this issue. In the past year, multiple states have passed the most extreme abortion laws this country has seen over half a century. Texas will literally throw women in jail if they are caught leaving the state to get an abortion.

But those evil Democrats want to teach kids that there is nothing wrong with being gay, so I guess it equals out?

I do not know how any sane person can still support the GOP, especially after the Jan. 6 insurrection and this SC ruling.

[systemvoltage]

Agreed, it will also make democracy more granular and for the lack of a better word: authentic. Citizens can vote their way for pro or anti Abortion issues and kick out electives that do not support their preferences.

[lanstin]

Until they use their political tools that worked to suppress so many popular things to supress democratic feed back cycles as well.