
Originally Posted by
lupussonic
It seems strange to base an abortion law on the right to privacy. Perhaps this shaky foundation is why Roe Vs Wade had been overturned?
Roe was a crappy piece of jurisprudence from the get-go, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the socio-political process was at work. A couple of states had already legalized abortion via the legislative process. Other states were on the cusp of doing so. Roe short-circuited that organic process.
Had Roe not been decided as it was, abortion would have likely been legalized most everywhere over the next several years, and opinion would have settled.
Prior to Roe, one's stance on the issue of abortion was a continuum: one could be ambivalent about whether it should be legal or not. Roe polarized the possible stances on abortion. You was either against abortion or "for abortion" (not that anyone is 'for abortion'. They're for allowing women to make their own decisions).
And then the right seized upon that as a wedge issue, which was instrumental in the merger of the christian Right and the Republican Party. And led to Reagan, Bush and Trump, and to divisive place in which we find ourselves today.
The problem with overturning Roe is that a return to the status quo ante is impossible. The well has been poisoned by the last 50 years of GOP hate speech on the topic.
Does anyone seriously think that there is a snowball's chance in Hell of, say, the Ohio legislature voting to legalize abortion now?
You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)