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.