The other point that I think is salient is what justice Ginsburg noted back in the 70s I believe. She said that abortion rights were trending towards a more “liberal“ direction. And then Roe came and galvanized the pro life movement dramatically.

We can only guess and hypothesize. But one has to wonder if the pro-choice movement would’ve been better off without row, and with the passage of time.

That's correct. RBG said she would not likely have voted with Roe which was focused on the doctor and not the woman. That she would have liked to see progress carry on in the states then eventually move federally (like we'll see with weed at some point). She said it gave opposition a target. Instead of some percentage of 50, it was a nationally agreed upon "problem" by opponents.

I disagree with a lot of her positions, but this one seems well reasoned.

The 7 justices that decided Roe really did think they were ending conflict by siding as they did, that I believe did not, at all.

Major hubris there.

“Ok. We’re telling you what’s up; now play nice.”

Roe was just a bad decision for so many reasons (not discussing the actual rule it created).

Except the goalposts have now been moved. We should anticipate that Republicans in the US Congress will attempt to codify a federal ban on abortion in all 50 states. Indeed, many are already advocating this. We should also anticipate that other freedoms once thought protected by the US Constitution and Supreme Court will come under threat. Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that he would like to see Obergefell, Lawrence and Grisword overturned. These decisions protect same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraception.

The overturning of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it.

If the Republicans tried passing laws with a federal ban on abortion, a federal ban on same-sex marriage, and a federal ban on contraception, they would lose a very, very, large portion of their voting base. I highly doubt they will do it.

>The overruling of Roe comes just days after another ruling by the same Supreme Court in which they took away states' rights to regulate the possession of guns. States rights has always been a rhetorical tactic used by conservatives as a convenient ruse to achieve their aims. When the argument from states rights is helpful to their political aims, they rely on it. When it's harmful, they ignore it.

You do not at all seem to understand the NYRPA vs Bruen ruling or topic. It makes me question the rest of your reasoning.

Overturning Roe comes one day after a Supreme Court ruling that ends the process of New York's MAY ISSUE (if you are wealthy, make a donation, are connected) a concealed carry permit practice. It turns out the state doesn't get to require you to prove a need before you have your rights.

There is no right besides 2A that ever faces this level of scrutiny and abuse. It doesn't help that the NYPD has multiple times since that lawsuit initially started been found guilty of corruption by the state's own investigators, when they initially withhold completely appropriate requests but favored "others".

You do not understand the topic you referenced.

This interview talked about some of this better than I can, I thought it was interesting: https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc

Hopefully the arguments in there are correct and this isn't likely to expand.