> Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right?

Sure, that'd be a logical next step. The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control.

That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. In the end, it may only weaken the power the federal government holds, which at this point is a good thing because power has been concentrating more and more the past 100 years.

I feel I have to reiterate though: this is still a disastrous outcome for a lot of people. I'm not happy about it. The conservative morons who "want the government out of their lives" but also continuously try to legislate people's bodies and sexuality have scored a real win, and I'm scared and upset for all the women in red states who have to live under their reign of hypocritical terror.

> That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck.

And don't forget the immense amount of suffering inflicted disproportionately on minority and disadvantaged groups.

You mean how our drug laws and penal system are the constitutionally-protected successors to slavery? I haven't forgotten.

"The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control."

It's funny how symmetrical hypocrisy is.

Liberals are hypocrites because they favor states rights when it comes to firearm regulations but not for abortions; and conservatives are hypocrites for exactly the opposite positions.

(I'll point out that in this instance, on a purely logical basis, the conservatives have the upper hand because they can clearly point to the second amendment, whereas the liberals need to try to identify abortion as some kind of implicit natural right that's not written down anywhere. I say this as a pro-choice person.)

In either case, you are right, it is largely a ruse. If abortions and firearms were both illegal nationally, then liberals would fight for states' rights on abortion but not for firearms; and conservatives would again have the opposite positions. Political creatures fight on the battlefield where they can win (or, more often, keep the status quo and stay in office but look like they are fighting to keep the campaign cash rolling in).

This is one of those cases, where, people like the original commenter, if we assume they are arguing in good faith, will then be "surprised" when it turns out those they are electing actually aren't committed to it being a "states' rights" issue. Devolution of authority to the states is just the current tool the right have to further restrict access to abortion, if federal legislative power to ban abortion becomes available to them, they will drop the "states' rights" approach immediately.

It's really a tale as old as time (or at least as old as the United States). "States' rights," outside of theoretical discussions, has always simply been a tool, not a true guiding ideology.

Yup. Funny how Thomas, in his opinion, believes "access to contraceptives, "same sex relationships", "same sex marriage" are all "errors that need to be corrected in the context of "states' rights", but somehow "interracial marriage" isn't.

Good faith is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. If you're proposing something bad I'm going to oppose you regardless of whether you're proposing it in good faith.

My point about good faith was assuming people that claim to simply be in favor of devolution of authority to legislatures or states are being truthful; and not just also saying that because its a useful and expedient defense.

It's dangerous to generalize but I think a least some subset of them already have: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ba...