I’m still confused why the legislature didn’t deal with this issue. I have a theory that in the absence of the Roe ruling, publicity of outcomes would have forced the politicians to create somewhat appropriate rules.

E.g. in Australia we recently reached the situation that both abortion and euthanasia are permitted by all states. I never considered it something the courts should weigh in on - progressive governments allowed members bills and conscience votes.

It’s possible there are US states where the ruling politicians don’t get rotated (voted) out like they are guaranteed to here (eventually) and the legislature is always conservative, but there’s always the possibility of federal laws.

The legislature has dealt with this issue by passing strong, specific laws regarding abortion in many of the states - with quite opposite conditions depending on the state. And it's not because of lack of "rotating" politicians, quite a few of them got elected on because they promised to prohibit abortions, getting votes from the state majority of conservative voters who considered a strict prohibition entirely appropriate.

The federal legislature, on the other hand has it a bit trickier, because despite the much grown influence of federal government using the commerce clause, it does technically seem that this kind of policy is something that according to USA constitutional principles gets to be decided on a state level.

>I’m still confused why the legislature didn’t deal with this issue. I have a theory that in the absence of the Roe ruling, publicity of outcomes would have forced the politicians to create somewhat appropriate rules.

As an American of a certain age, I'd say that it's because culture changes slowly.

While it was obvious to me decades ago that sentient beings should have bodily autonomy and that it was cruel to deny those same beings the right to love who and how they need to do so, that wasn't the case across most of the US.

In fact, the opposition to stuff like bodily autonomy, basic marriage rights, and a raft of other issues weren't (as it is now) concentrated in a single political party as it is today.

And that's why Roe v. Wade was never codified by statute, at least not at the Federal level (note that each state has its own laws regarding bodily autonomy).

Which is a huge mistake IMHO. Bodily autonomy isn't something that should be legislated by any government. Full stop.

Before the age of the 24/7 news cycle (amped up by orders of magnitude with the advent of "social" media), political discourse was generally more local and more amenable to compromise at the national level.

There are numerous reasons for the political and geographical "sorting" that's gone on for the last 40 years or so, but the upshot has been that folks have become more reactionary, more intolerant and more likely to demonize those with whom they disagree.

In fact, in many cases political operatives in the US don't even pretend to address issues. Rather they just demonize the political "other," refuse to cooperate to create positive change and leave it at that.

And the bodily autonomy issue is part and parcel of that trend. There have always been busybodies who want to control what others do, say or think. And a small group of religious extremists hijacked one of the major parties (because that party had continued to lose power and influence because of their anti-liberty, anti-working class stances) that recently culminated in the recent SCOTUS decision[4].

It's really sad. Not because things were so much better 40 years ago. In fact, in many respects, things are better for minority and under-represented groups.

Back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s[5], the death of a black man at the hands of police[0] (or a civilian[1] for that matter) was almost always just shrugged off.

Today, folks go to jail[2][3] for that sort of thing.

Is the US the inclusive, free society that we claim to be? No. Are we better than we used to be? Yes.

Does more need to be done? Definitely.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Healt...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...

Neither gay rights nor abortion are enumerated as rights in the US Constitution. Sure, some appointed judges have found ways to reason those rights out of the text. But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution.

>But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment

Gay marriage, abortion and the right to bodily autonomy that underpin them are inalienable rights retained by the people, and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. This is not "left to the states" any more than any other unenumerated right is.

And note - gay marriage and abortion have majority support among the American populace, and in many states where they have currently been outlawed.

Calling for a Constitutional Amendment for this is a red herring, as rights do not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The Constitution doesn't even support the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.

> and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people.

And guess what -- in states like Alabama, the people of that state have elected politicians that choose to regulate things like abortion in a manner different than what would be the case in a state like California. On the flip side, you have states/municipalities that regulate the second amendment -- something DEFINITELY in the constitution, and not in a "squint really hard and it sorta makes sense" way like abortion -- much more stringently than other states. The system is working as intended.

The issue is that you're expecting every state to have the exact same cultural attitudes towards things like abortion. They don't. The majority of people in certain states are against it, and they have voted accordingly.

The constitution delineates the limits of government power. It is a red herring to insist that a constitutional ammendment is not required, when a clear "government may not deny any persons right to bodily autonamy or sexual preference" would ideally stamp out any government interference in such matters.

You are right that all rights are retained by the people, but what has people mad / worried is the states legislating against the will of the majority (specifically because there is nothing stopping them from doing so at a federal or constitutional level).

Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.

not yet, but interracial marriage historically was [0], so why should it be any different for gay marriage? (genuinely curious)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un...

Slavery was also historically legal but isn't any longer. I don't get what interracial marriage being illegal once upon a time has to do with anything.

interracial marriage was illegal in many states up until the late 60's -hardly once upon a time- and i might add that republicans are known recently to say they are after interracial marriage as well [1]

[1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-inter...

Doesn't sound like they're after interracial marriage, sounds like they want it to be left to the states to decide, as Republicans tend to feel on most issues.

Stop acting like there's some mainstream Republican movement to ban gay and interracial marriage, it's obviously not true when you have to sensationalize the titles of your own linked articles.

Edit:

And it's not even "they" want it to be left to the states. It's a single individual who even mentioned anything about it, and even they "backpeddled" (i.e clarified what they said after the media twisted their words for sensationalism).

  > they want it to be left to the states

this is a dog-whistle for "we want to ban it in our red states", just like abortion... once obergefell is overturned, expect same-sex marriage bans to follow soon-after (probably starting with texas, florida)

and republicans are already changing their platforms to include even stronger anti-gay platforms [1] as has been historically (ill just link to their platform directly) [2]

[1] https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/20...

---

[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa...

  Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a "judicial Putsch" — full of "silly extravagances" — that reduced "the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie." In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

To be fair, Trump being able to stack the Supreme Court the way he did was the result of happenstance and decades of effort by the GOP. They did face an extreme uphill battle, but they were able to surmount it.

The real problem here is that the Supreme Court is a lifetime political appointment and, as long as their decisions have support in Congress, they're unimpeachable.