It effectively bans safe abortion for poor people in red states.

And perhaps states will outlaw them from travelling to blue states, and outlaws anyone assisting them.

Missouri tried. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-t...

OP is saying SCOTUS doesn't make abortion impossible (ruling that it is always tantamount to murder and thus never permissible). A ban would prohibit states from allowing abortion, and this isn't the case.

SCOTUS has said that states may decide how to regulate it. Individual states will either ban, or not, as their constituents wish.

Because the state went through a democratic process and decided to do that. Democracy doesn't mean that everyone has to vote for the policies you like.

"We have decided that rich people who can travel to a different state have different rights than poor people" is a very bad process.

That's the difference between rights and privileges -- As of this week I can't vote away your your right to carry concealed weapon in my city, but you can vote to take away my access to abortion, or even contraception in yours?

Yes, abortion isn't a constitutional right.

How many dictators came to power through a democratic process? i think there was this really famous one in 1930's, what was his name...

1930s Germany had no democratic tradition so it's unsurprising that a reactionary conservative movement resulted in a dictator. That is absolutely not the case here, our republic is an enormous part of our tradition so it's extremely unlikely that such a movement here would have the same result.

Also if you keep calling conservatives Nazis eventually they might start wondering why, they might start remembering and noticing things you'd rather they forget.

Ahh, so any democratic process that results in a policy you don't like is 1930's Germany. While any democratic process that results in a policy you do like is... ?

aah, so as long as something happened though a democratic process it's fine and dandy and no examination is needed as to the possible consequences of that decision?

The votes of the people living in those states do that

Yes. As I understand it, Roe vs Wade argued that a right to abortion was implied by the constitution, and thus such a right was created implicitly, rather than by the explicit passing of legislation.

The next step is clearly to advocate for explicit legislation.

No, best would be to leave it up to the individual.

We don't do that with other state laws like murder and theft. And different states have different ideas on what those laws should look like too.

EDIT: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you upset about SCOTUS citing common law tradition? Most of our law works that way, you have to build on something. Even "reason" needs axioms and you have to find a way to pick those.

EDIT2: There are a surprising number of people who want to decriminalize theft and even murder in some situations (look up "mutual combat" in Chicago.)

That framing begs the question. Virtually everyone agrees murder and theft should be crimes. There is vast philosophical disagreement on whether abortion should be a crime. You can believe it is murder, but the majority of Americans disagree. Ultimately, it should be up to the pregnant person to weigh the morality of that decision, not the government.

> Virtually everyone agrees [...] theft should be crimes

Wasn't there just a thread here a few days ago that had a bunch of people arguing that the decriminalization of shoplifting in San Francisco is a good thing?

Abortion is not murder or theft. An appropriate comparison would be an appendectomy. If states started banning appendectomies, I would hope the fed would codify it as law.

This is the very core of the disagreement. Pro-life people do not agree that it’s comparable to an appendectomy.

Abortion not being murder is clearly an opinion a great deal of people disagree on. Kind of the crux of the issue.

And that is where nearly 1/2 of America disagrees. Abortion is murder.

27% of america agrees -- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...

It seems utterly ridiculous that you would rather go on precedent than case by case rational decision making.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. What you're saying is exactly correct. That's what this ruling affirms: it is a state issue. Abortion is not in the US Constitution and many - even left-leaning - legal scholars have said Roe v Wade was ruled incorrectly.

I downvoted it because it's hopelessly naive and incorrect. This does not return the power to the states, it gives the power to the State to prevent people from having access to reproductive healthcare. Every American just had rights stripped away.

The second that Republicans have a majority in Congress and the Presidency, they will pass a federal ban on abortion in all the states.

Not entirely sure how this phenomenon is called, but we live in times where we no longer speak the same language. On purpose. Which facet of reality are we going to emphasize? Which facet of reality are we going to deny, excising it from language itself?

"reproductive healthcare", correct.

"mothers killing their own babies in the womb", also correct.

Echoes of Babel.

Any such law would be unconstitutional?

They may want to. I’m skeptical. But it’s unconstitutional.

SCOTUS just ruled that no, laws that ban abortion aren't unconstitutional. There is already precedent and practice of the Federal government to regulate healthcare, the power to make specific crimes against children federal, or any number of various ways they could argue the Federal government has the power to ban abortion.

The members of the Court that claim to be pick and choose which material they're originalist or textualist regarding, particularly in this case. Others are just idealogues nominated and confirmed to be political tools of the Republican party. You should not have faith in them, their credibility is shot.

You really think this court will care? Their current judicial philosophy can best be summed up as “because we can”

Because this is not the end. The GOP will issue a federal abortion ban next time they control congress and the presidency.

Do get states to decide on slavery again too? I think such fundamental, health and freedom-related questions should be decided on a national level.

The Supreme court enforced slavery - and virtually ensured that the civil war would occur when it expanded slavery with Dredd Scott. (On the basis of something not in the constitution). The legislative made it illegal and changed the constitution. This opens the same path to legislatures. Hopefully without the civil war that occurred because the Supreme court played a role in preserving slavery.

Does nobody read history anymore?

Then elect federal politicians who are advocating legislation to decide it on a national level.

The current administration had a majority in both houses, knew this decision was coming, yet did nothing.

No it practically has not, the republicans would immediately filibuster any attempt. And they will keep doing so by locking in enough states which means that the majority of the American people can vote what they want, it wouldn't change a thing.

Exactly how our constitution is supposed to work - your rights are left up to the states to accept or reject/s

Unless one is talking about CCW, then it's apparently a federal thing.

If the states all got together and passed an abortion rights amendment, similar to the 2nd amendment, then it would be a federal thing.

I mean… let’s not act like the 2nd amendment is interpreted in any serious way.

The Supreme Court invented a personal right to bear arms from a 250 year old amendment during my lifetime and is now not only ignoring words that are in there but adding words that aren’t

Anyone trying to apply logic to this is just facilitating nonsense because these decision are based in ideology not logic. Don’t launder it for them.

Except for all those constitutional rights... Freedom of religion being one, and their are at least two recognized religions where abortion is a religious right.

So there you go, freedom for Christian's not for anyone else, a good Christian nation! /s

Your free to be Christian or be ruled by their beliefs

Pro Life groups said they're going after residents who go out of state next, then a national ban.

It leaves it up to the states now because there is no meaningful federal code on the matter. The underpinnings of the decision allow for a federal ban since it's just saying that there's no inherent constitutional protection.