It lets each state decide. This is the correct interpretation of the constitution. There is no right to an abortion in the constitution so it is left up to the states. The court is not at all banning abortions in the US. If this decision becomes official, abortion will still be legal in the US, just not everywhere. Just like marijuana.
Why is it best for one state to allow abortion and pot, but a neighboring state to ban them?
No laws were broken. The dems would have done the same thing if they could have.
Do you have evidence?
Claims that need to be proven. read this:
What Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Said About Roe at Confirmation Hearings - FactCheck.org
Where did they claim they would never revisit the case? They said it was precedent and never said they would not hear a case or reconsider the outcome. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law for over 50 years. Should the separate but equal doctrine not have been revisited and overturned? Precedent does not mean can a case can never be overturned with better law.
I watched much of the Kav and Barrett hearings, and was not impressed by the many deflections. My concern is what Collins and Murkowski have stated, that both feel lied to and decided in their discussions with these nominees. We all knew why trump's three nominees were picked, and that fruit is bearing out as evidenced by the leaked opinion.
I am for a nationwide abortion ban but not contraception ban. I am not religious.
But you are following a religious moral argument. This argument causes many practical problems that anti-abortion people ignore.
Do you really think abortions will be illegal in California or New York, Chicago, Minneapolis etc. I do not think it is extreme to protect a right to life, I do think it is extreme to fight for the right to end a potential life. If they impose anything it is through the democratic process. People vote for them, take it up with the people that vote for them.
Many states are seeing an uptick on abortion services, and they are struggling to manage the clients, denying many of them due to the demand. Plus since these citizens have services available elsewhere why force them to travel? Many poor can;'t afford it, nor can they afford more children. How is that practical or moral? Why don't you advocates offer solutions to these hardships? Could it be you have no solutions and will choose to ignore these problems until it becomes a threat to life and the wellbeing of the babies that were forced to be born? Where is your morality now?
This illustrates why moral absolutes fail. Until you anti-abortion advocates can explain how to take care of the influx of unwanted children you don't have a moral solution, you're just trading one moral dilemma for another. And your chosen moral dilemma is a religious one that you have adopted as an atheist. That's an intellectual dilemma to confound your moral dilemma. Now you just need to figure out what to do with unwanted children, and where the money will come from. Do that and then your morality can be resolved. If you can't, you're stuck with a religious moral position that will cause more harm.
Here is the issue. I think there is a victim in abortion, you don't.
And that belief on your part is religious. You just don't seem aware of how you picked this belief up.
Let me ask you this, do you think it immoral to abort pregnant feral cats? If not, why not? What makes humans a special species in your view?
