[mindslight]

Seriously. Yet another case of NYT's hypersensationalism gravely misleading their own flock. There's been no "upholding" here, the opinion straight up states the plaintiffs should pursue their goal through state legislatures. With the combination of Dobbs and the longstanding criminalization of personal chemistry, I don't know that such a case would even need to make it to the Supreme Court.

This whole topic is rife with self-defeating nonsense. I personally used to think abortion should be an issue left up to the states, in part due to the common "pro choice" messaging - if it's a choice, and people feel so strongly about it, why shouldn't regulation of that choice be left up to the states? Then life happens and you see that most of this topic, especially all those abhorrent-sounding later-term strawmen that get trotted out, really has nothing to do with any semblance of choice. Rather it's mostly about religious fundamentalists playing duality-make-believe that a non-viable fetus is still somehow an abstract "person", and then pushing their fantasy onto everyone else.

I'd love to see the whole topic reframed. If a state bans elective abortions of normal pregnancies after a certain specific amount of development, that's fine. And in fact, as far as I can tell most (probably all) states already do this! But there is absolutely no rationale to laws like Texas's, which are essentially just a superstitious attack on what is otherwise straightforward medical care.