Again, you ignore the actual realities of politics. Obama promised to codify Roe v Wade his first day in office. He then refused to, since it was better for democrats to keep it on as a political bargaining chip.
Now, what are US liberals supposed to do? Not vote and lose? Vote for the Republicans and see abortion criminalized federally? No, they have to vote for the Democrats again and maybe hope they finally try to pass their agenda. There is a false choice presented. It was urgent to the voters, but not to the politicians.
This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.
Easier said than done, for many.
One really simple example of what the SCOTUS could do is they could rule that an unborn child - from the time of conception - is covered by the rights laid out in the 14th amendment.
Takes all choice back away from the state once more.
Do you know of countries with a federal government and where people can't travel freely between the member states? The ones I know don't have this problem so I'm not sure how that's something unique to the US.
Personal attacks are particularly not ok, so please don't post like that again.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
p.s. It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's another line at which we ban accounts (even if they're not breaking the other guidelines) - for past explanations, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
I'm not going to ban you right now because if I scroll back far enough in your commenting history I do see comments that are in line with the intention of the site, but if you'd please correct this going forward, we'd be grateful.
Note that this is in addition to what I said at the start of this comment—there are two separate issues here.
PS: I didn't post that comment.
The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.
> The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.
Assumptions galore are made here. First off, the rule of law exists because of power heirarchies. People create laws to protect THEMSELVES and THEIR interests. Monarchs didn't create laws for the benefit of everyone, neither do dictators. Furthermore many laws exist to augment our empathy. Speeding laws exist because many people are incapable of comprehending the danger they could pose to someone else. Animal cruelty is illegal because the majority of people understand it's wrong, and we will force that wisdom upon others who don't.
> the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains
Where do you think empathy comes from if not our brains? Empathy is a tool of reason, not orthogonal to it. Would you praise someone for only using one of their senses? Or would you think they are ridiculous for constructing a worldview based only around their sense of smell? Thinking that empathy is somehow a trait to be overcome and not a tool is the same as eating soap regardless of how it tastes, because it "smells good". Empathy allows us to consider the conditions and experiences of those outside of our immediate sphere of influence. In a democracy this is especially invaluable, since individuals make decisions that influence society at large.
The inability to see outside of your every day experience is not logical or rational, it's the exact opposite. Empirical evidence can be a great tool for analyzing macro trends, but empathy allows us to better understand the causality.
My second paragraph expands upon the reason and justice aspect.
Also the current constitutional crisis we are in demolishes the legalist justification anyways. States being able to ban travel to other states for abortion, states allowing private citizens to sue others for getting abortions in other states. States limiting access to websites that are legal in other states and limiting the first amendment.
Because repealing Roe was done on an ideological basis it has caused a cascade of problems around how much power states should have, one that has been largely settled since the Civil War.
As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work (maybe there's a 3rd option to kick out SC?).
It's not legal to secede from the US, we fought an entire war because it was not a right of the states. Most of what you say ignores the reality of our political system, voter suppression, who draw districts, filibuster, etc. Which makes it more difficult than "just vote". Which is why the Republicans went the route of Supreme Court justice appointment, so they could legislate via the court.
People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal.
If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.