The majority of people don’t want to allow abortions at 36 weeks, but they also don’t want abortions completely banned.
So there is a democratic debate to be had about where in the middle the non extreme two sides could meet. (In Europe there is no debate about abortion and most countries allow it to 12 weeks).
Better to have a debate and both sides compromise than some court deciding on one of the most extreme views. The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortion, they did however allow it to 36 weeks for decades.
What they did do last week is say: hey guys, it’s a federal democracy, why don’t you fucking debate it and legislate it somehow where both sides can agree, as is normal with divisive issues in a democracy
Even RBG said that Roe v Wade was on shaky ground as a legal precedent.
And what people don’t realize is that if Roe v Wade wasn’t overturn the next ruling discussed was allowing further restrictions by states, further eroding the precedent.
The alternative was just kicking the can down the road until the next challenge.
So there is a democratic debate to be had about where in the middle the non extreme two sides could meet. (In Europe there is no debate about abortion and most countries allow it to 12 weeks).
Better to have a debate and both sides compromise than some court deciding on one of the most extreme views. The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortion, they did however allow it to 36 weeks for decades.
What they did do last week is say: hey guys, it’s a federal democracy, why don’t you fucking debate it and legislate it somehow where both sides can agree, as is normal with divisive issues in a democracy