For the record, Ginsburg thought that Roe vs Wade was a mistake, for this exact reason. Momentum was lost to get actually good legislation in, and the vulnerable Roe vs Wade was put in instead.

She wanted a privileges or immunities clause (in 14th Amendment) based argument instead. The issue there is that reopening the Slaughterhouse cases (which shut that line of questioning down) will reopen the obiter dicta therein on birthright citizenship. Pick one, abortion or birthright citizenship?

This court will never say a federal law allowing abortion is constitutional. Thomas is 74 and Alito is 72. A lot of stars need to align so that anything can be done about this. The lone thing I see changing the calculus is if women in red states stage a mass protest by actually moving to blue states in massive numbers.

> mass protest by actually moving to blue states in massive numbers

That actually makes the problem worse. You can't undo this without changing the court. You can't change the court without the senate and you can't get the senate of team blue continues to isolate it self in a handful of states.

In what way would it not be constitutional? Wouldn't a petitioner have to cite the preexisting implied rights or explicit laws violated in order for the case to even have standing?

Doesn’t your argument apply also to state abortion legalization laws under equal protection? Are those getting struck down? I haven’t been keeping up with this topic.

Republicans have been floating a national ban on abortions; if the Republicans take the legislature in November, it is likely to be the first item on the agenda.

Roe v. Wade was the only thing preventing that.

This majority is regressive enough to go full Handmaid's Tale I fear.

This ruling has zero effect in my state where abortion is protected under the state constitution, and there’s near zero chance of a constitutional convention being formed in my lifetime, much less enough consensus being found at such a meeting.

Or maybe the women in red states can vote for democrats? The 2022 elections outcome could turn out very unexpected.

> In 2016, 55% of voters were women, which trump won 47-44. By three points, which is a solid win in a presidential general election.

You're quoting stats for white women only, Trump lost the female vote 54/39.

Which makes this claim factually incorrect:

> Roe V Wade is the most important women's right won in the courts in the last 50 years, and women voted to overturn it effectively.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examinati...

I'd imagine if you combined the age demographic information, the female vote that may actually be able to get pregnant and so be affected by this is going to swing even harder away from Trump.

The combined male and female vote swings 30% to the red between the 18-29 and 65+ demographics.

Let me assume you are male..

Also, what happens with rape victims? Or you know, women often know about their pregnancy weeks after the event?

Also, you are literally less likely to die from donating your kidney then a women giving birth. Do you really have no empathy whatsoever? Giving birth is brutal, you have a no matter how disgusting it is to write but technically a parasite growing inside you sucking out every resource you have causing often life altering changes. And we are not even at birthing.

I am also a guy by the way, but that is exactly why I believe that the only opinion we should have on the issue is to listen to women, and the only voice we should have is to shout over old men deciding on a topic not concerning them.

> Let me assume you are male..

So what? It takes two to tango.

> Also, what happens with rape victims?

They should be able to get an abortion. I'm not anti-abortion in all cases.

> Also, you are literally less likely to die from donating your kidney then a women giving birth. Do you really have no empathy whatsoever? Giving birth is brutal, you have a no matter how disgusting it is to write but technically a parasite growing inside you sucking out every resource you have causing often life altering changes. And we are not even at birthing.

Let me quote a paragraph from [0]:

When a woman is pregnant, the situation is different. In the usual case, where pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother’s uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. It is a basic human need — every single person who has ever been born required it. Just as the newborn has a specific claim against his parents due to the fact that they created him in all his helplessness, so too did he have a claim against them before he was born, for the same reason. It is true that the heavier burden falls on the mother during the prenatal period. Men simply cannot directly provide what their children need during the first forty weeks of their lives. (I would advocate requiring fathers to indirectly provide as much as they can by compensating mothers for their medical bills, lost work time, and other expenses during pregnancy.) The fact that women must shoulder more of the parental obligation during pregnancy than men is regrettable, but does not negate the obligation. If someone claims that “women will always need abortion,” note the implicit assumptions. The first is that our ability to bear children is, and always will be, a handicap. The second is that we can never hope for our society to adequately adjust to the needs of mothers so that women will not feel the need to abort. The third is that violence against certain of our fellow human beings is an acceptable, even necessary way to solve social problems.

[...] But I find the acceptance of abortion as a response to a sexist society to be inconsistent with humanist ideals. Humanism values the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It affirms that moral standards should be based on the effect of our actions on our fellow human beings. It embraces the use of reason and repudiates the use of violence to settle disputes. Abortion is an ancient, backwards practice which is not worthy of those ideals. Legal or not, we must progress beyond it.

> I am also a guy by the way, but that is exactly why I believe that the only opinion we should have on the issue is to listen to women, and the only voice we should have is to shout over old men deciding on a topic not concerning them.

Oh please, not this argument again. First of all, there are women who are also against abortion, this has nothing to do with "old men". Second of all, we are all human and are capable of empathy (well, except the psychopaths) and just because you are not a woman doesn't mean that you can't reason about things that affect women.

[0] https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates-secularist-abort...

> The need to live in the mother’s uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. It is a basic human need

Just as possibly the most basic human right there can be - bodily autonomy.

There is no monetary help supplied by the father that can even measure up to the health implications of a pregnancy, money can’t buy/fix health.

Very convenient of you to leave out the important sentence that came before:

>> In the usual case, where pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents.

> Just as possibly the most basic human right there can be - bodily autonomy.

You have bodily autonomy. You can choose to have or not to have sex (which may or may not lead to pregnancy). Abortion is a medical procedure and is not a human right.

On the other hand, when it came to the COVID vaccine, the Dems were very quick to ignore the bodily autonomy argument based on bogus claims.

An example from the Australian Human Rights Act: > No-one may be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her free consent.

My neighbor had an IUD in place when she conceived a 4th child in her early 40s. The pregnancy was ectopic (or misplaced in some way) and the doctor said it would “resolve” on its own. It did not and now she has a disabled 5 year old.

It was definitely not ectopic, there is no way in which an ectopic pregnancy resulted in a birth.