Please don't cross into flamewar like this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

Even in a divisive thread like this one, your comment here stands out as breaking the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules when posting here? We'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm fully pro-abortion but I have to admit Roe's legal argument was a big stretch at best. Even RBG admitted so. I wish they'd have left it alone but moreso I wish congress made any attempt in 50 years to codify it into law.

>The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion.

This is not what happened at all. They ruled against the federal government's ability to regulate it.

No, wrong. Incorrect. Roe v Wade was explicitly a ruling saying that abortion should be broadly allowed, and that no government (neither state nor federal) can regulate it (with caveats). Overturning Roe v Wade has given that power back to the state government and to the federal government.

None of this had anything to do with the federal government regulating it. It was the court saying it was a right not to be infringed upon.

>It was the court saying it was a right not to be infringed upon.

Roe v Wade was ruled on the basis of the 14th amendment due process clause regarding the right to privacy. Anyone who thought this ruling was an iron-clad blanket right to abortion was fooling themselves.

Abortion is not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Just like everything else not in the constitution, it's up to States to make their own laws regarding it.

Dobbs effectively have full control to the states. Unless the federal government can make a commerce clause argument any law they make prohibiting/legalizing abortion will be overturned due to the 10th amendment.

Specifically, the Supreme Court took power from women and gave it “back” to the government

that is a very popular perspective, which reinforces exactly what I said about it being too complicated for people.

Congress outsourced the decision to the judicial branch, the judicial branch said its for the elected representatives, aka Congress, to decide. Barring any supremacy from Congress, state laws and the consensus mechanisms of those states are the only laws available.

Congress outsourced emissions decision to the executive branch, the judicial branch said its for the elected representatives, aka Congress, to decide. Barring any supremacy from Congress, state laws and the consensus mechanisms of those states are the only laws available.

Again I call bullshit. There’s no way in a million years these same clowns would apply the same logic to gun control. This is all just motivated reasoning because the court wants to advance a conservative agenda

Good point. It's interesting to think about this outsourcing as a relief valve Congress uses. Feels like a function of the monetary stakes for any decision are too high. Even freshmen congressional reps are too soaked in the financial implications of their own function that they punt their appointed power to the judicial branch.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31933692.

That is the job of the Congress. They are derelict in their duties. Even RGB said the decision was based on shaky arguments.