That said, I don't think a constitutional right exists and the Roe decision that found one was somewhat tortured (even RBG said as much early in her career iirc).

Given that this should be argued democratically and via policy. I'm in favor of federal protections that raise the minimum bar to what Europe has and prevents states from enacting all-out bans. I also can see reasonable disagreement about later stage abortion rights for the reasons I mentioned above.

It's a messy issue, it's not the job of SCOTUS to legislate these kinds of issues and I think having done so here has ultimately led to a more polarized situation where we're worse off. Fighting this out democratically is probably healthier for our democracy.

For those that don't want to click:

> "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)."

That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.

Second, Denmark citizens have universal healthcare making it easier to access procedures, pregnancy testing, etc.

Third, prior to the ruling some states only had 1 abortion center state-wide. As well as rules requiring day long waiting periods, anti-abortion counseling, etc.

Imagine how access looks different when you must save up for months, travel 3 hours to visit a clinic, rent a motel for the night for the waiting period, and all while trying to not miss any days at work.

Hope that helps convey that rather dry comparisons of the weeks of various international statutes is a far cry from determining whether one system is “a lot more restrictive” than another.

There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc).

It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that.

Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo).

IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.

States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw.

I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.

If this is your concern, shouldn't you be furious that Roe v Wade stood in the way of 50 years of progress in preventing that? The democratic process could have been improving women's rights for all that time. This is exactly what happened with LGBT rights in that time - much less than that time, in fact. Instead this judicial block was in place which was like clamping down the lid on the democratic pressure cooker, preventing any kind of progress by preventing dialogue.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but what "progress" do we need to be making? Women had access to reproductive care for the past 50 years, and now they won't. Doesn't sound like progress to me

That doesn't sound like facts to me.

When one side of the debate does nothing but spew nonsensical falsehoods, it's really easy to pick a side even when it seemed morally ambiguous before. Even easier when I'm agreeing with RBG.

I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally.

Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically.

I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that.

Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best.

We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.

But I do think that leaving abortion rights up to states will work out terribly. It's kind of like letting states decide if women should be allowed to vote

I never understood this argument. There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so).

Babies are viable when they can survive with help from any adult. Before some fetal age, they are completely dependent on the body of the mother - if they are removed from it, no matter how gently, they will die (perhaps there is some way to make a fetal transplant, but that wouldn't necessarily change the equation so much).

Once past some age (and especially after birth), they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother.

Wouldn't it then make more sense to require the mother to take care for the fetus/baby before the age of viability (as she's the only one who can), not after that (and/or after birth) when anyone can? Right now, it's the reverse.

Now, the viability standard is important because it is very hard to consider a non-viable entity "a person" in any serious sense. If it can't even perform the basic functions of its organism, how can it be considered to have rights, and has never been able to do so, how can it be considered a person?

What I am sayin here is that if there was a process by which we could take an unwanted fetus and implant it into someone else / allow that child to exist outside of the physical body of a person that doesn't want it, then sure, that is possibly a better alternative to abortion. Short of that, people should not be forcing other people to give births against their will.