>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe

Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests.

Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.

Technically Schedule 1 drugs should be given the same treatment as R v. W just got.

There is no federally enumerated power to ban substances. That should be a state issue according the the 10th ammendment.

Both abortion and schedule I drug prohibition/anti-prohibition require Constitutional ammendments legally.

The ruling isn't actually rooted in state versus federal powers, and in fact opens the door for a federal ban on abortion.

What is the ruling rooted in? This is what I see:

""" hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Con-stitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, in-cluding the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCaseynow chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue ofabortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting. """ https://www.scribd.com/document/579588941/19-1392-6j37

That spells it out pretty well.

That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans, and therefore lower tiers of law (including federal US code) instituting arbitrary bans. Currently it looks like a states' rights issue because the bans are only in state code at the moment. The door is left open for federal code to fully ban abortion however, and Republican leaders have been messaging that this is their next step. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-ackn...

> That it's rooted in the court's idea that there is no inherent constitutional protection against abortion bans,

I don’t think they went so far as to definitely say there is no federal right to an abortion under any circumstances. I think they’ve left open the possibility that the due process right to life entails a right to an abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother (and possibly even when necessary to prevent severe long-term harm to her health-such as if continuing with the pregnancy was highly likely to cause her to go blind, for example). I could certainly see a future ruling (even by the current SCOTUS majority) upholding a federal right to an abortion in those very restrictive circumstances. All it might (sadly) take, is for America to have its own Savita Halappanavar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

Agreed. Substantive due process was left intact.

Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion.

Any federal legislation would have to come in the form of an ammendment.

> Additionally, regarding left or right federal legislation: this would very likely be struck down by the same court under the reasoning that the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion.

I think, if Congress enacted a narrow federal right to an abortion – such as the right to an abortion to save the life of the mother – the current SCOTUS majority would be likely to uphold it - the right to life (including that of the mother) is arguably "deeply rooted in the nation's history" – and "life" is even explicitly mentioned in the text – and so such Congressional legislation would arguably be a legitimate exercise of the Section 5 power to enforce Section 1. Plausibly, they might even uphold a statutory federal right to an abortion to save the mother's health, since the right to health has an obvious connection to the right to life.

Seems like drugs might "reasonably" fall under the commerce clause [0] and thus federal regulation, though it is contemptible how much it is abused.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

They do, but that only regulates interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is unimpacted.

We’re going to need a new-deal level mandate unfortunately and my understanding is that will has only been built off catastrophic events as large as two world wars and the Great Depression.

And keep in mind that was before Fox News/other right wing propaganda networks highjacked a third of the nation's critical thinking abilities with scare tactics and conspiracy nonsense.

Basically they built already exactly those extraordinary events in the minds of their followers...

As long as D's continue to push unpopular initiatives like "racial equity" (reverse discrimination), banning gas cars, and increasing taxes to pay for social programs, they're never going to get a mandate. The reality is, whether you like it or not, even California rejected ultra left-wing "racial equity" initiatives at the ballot (Prop 16), people like their big gas cars that pollute the environment (or they can't afford a $50k EV/$30k hybrid and think D's are out of touch), and there is a widespread notion that the government is notoriously inefficient and incompetent. Agencies like the DMV and SSA don't exactly work to dispel that notion either.

Where's the common sense stuff? Where's the stuff most people would vote for?

I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.

I recently learned that being a kidney donor has lower fatality rates than birthing. With that in mind I absolutely can’t see any reason to override someone’s bodily autonomy on any reason whatsoever. The not hyperbolic analog would be to force someone to be a kidney donor in order to save a live (one who actually lived on the Earth for decades) - on which I’m fairly sure noone sane would agree.

Would you be willing to have an unwanted fetus transplanted into your body to carry it to term, and have all associated parental ties transferred to you

Was that comment meant for me?

It was, though I initially read your comment as suggesting that since kidney transplants were lower risk, that pregnancies should always be carried; missing the significant cost of carrying it out.

On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. Though it’s not what I thought.

>On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was.

The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an organ removed, a pregnancy should be voluntary in the same way we wouldn't coerce someone into giving up their kidney for someone else.

A bit of a weak argument. The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it.

That being said, I think it is perhaps noteworthy to say if women lose the bodily autonomy for carrying children, it is outrageous that dead people should retain the bodily autonomy to not be organ donors.

>The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it.

So? You wouldn't mandate mandatory kidney removals if we could mitigate the long term risk of not having one because that risk isn't the reason we don't unilaterally harvest organs from people against their will.

Regardless of where the risk is clustered (at the event or in the long tail following it), it is the harm to an individual via a non-consensually driven medical event.

I think mandatory blood donations might be closer to the argument you’re trying to make here

If you read around, you'll see that tribalism mode has fully engaged in many here. People aren't reading/thinking, all over in this comment section. Or, as the top level comment does, criticize those that are thinking about/being critical about certain aspects.

Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.

Tumorectomy is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the cancer. Now I find the religious view that a cancer exists as soon the cell starts replicating uncontrollably ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of the cancer's life implied by calling it just a "medical procedure".

I think it's fine. The cancer is not able to survive in it's own and has a significant negative impact on the person carrying it. To make medical removal illegal even in cases where continuing to carry the cancer threatens the life of the one carrying it displays reckless disregard for their safety.

You would have a point if cancer had a heart and a brain and was observed to develop into a sentient being after 9 months. Or if cancer was the result of a deliberate and voluntary action that the vast crushing majority of people older than 15 years understand its inevitable consequences.

Alas, none of that is true, and your remark can only win you a comfortable position in the mental gymnastics Olympics. And a 1st place in the moral bankruptcy competition, for comparing infants to a disease.

So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)? There is a 3rd party to consider here and they are already living and breathing. So, blood or organ donations should be made mandatory. And if the argument is that the woman is responsible for getting pregnant then apply the above logic to a person you accidentally injured in a car accident. Now, anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.

>anyone who causes a car accident should be forced to give blood (or any other part of their body) to ensure the victim is saved.

Yes.

>So, I should be forced to give blood if someone’s life is at risk and they need my blood (or, kidney)?

If that someone being in risk was the inevitable biological result of your actions, then yes. You should be forced to save him/her. Because you put him/her there.

So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs?

Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant, if indicated?

This is obviously very silly and not thought out. Banning abortion is just as silly.

>So if you gave someone Covid and their lungs failed, they have a right to one of your lungs

Yes, if you can

1- Prove that I infected them

And,

2- Prove that no other solution would save the infected person, and organ donation would

>Should men be required to donate organs to women they got pregnant

Not if the impregnation was consensual. The person infected with Covid or hit by a car didn't consent to those actions, but a pregnant woman consented to impregnation unless she's raped, therefore she should accept responsibility for the associated risks. Rape is one of the very few reasons where abortion should be allowed. But it's something like 0.1% or so of abortion reasons, the vast majority of abortions are morally indefensible.

>deliberate and voluntary

You know people can be raped right?

Legitimate rape rarely leads to pregnancy [1].

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/19/republican-tod...

Just being the devils advocate: Contraceptives do also work while being raped...

Does an 11 year old have access to contraceptives from her father that’s raping her?

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution

until just now, the courts have repeatedly confirmed for several decades that abortion was protected at a federal level through the constitution.

> Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level

In many cases, like abortion until today, under the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, and in some cases building at least in part on Roe which was just overturned.