But did not judges usurp the original decision making about Roe from the states to begin with.
Pre-Roe states had for a few years individually determined whether abortion would be legal or not and to what term.
Then the Roe case made it's way to SCOTUS and here we are....as you said based on bad law....right to Privacy tongue twisting and Harry Blackmun's fembot urges.
Now...if only Roe is overturned and right to life for the unborn is not seen as a constitutional protection then what is to stop the courts from once again working to derail those states that would toss Roe.
This snake needs to be cut off at the head in my view or we shall just go back and forth until the unborn are granted constitutional protection by a packed SCOTUS who decide from whatever constitutional angle necessary to do so.
I understand your purist view but expecting all the Fed courts and legislatures to play fair is naive in my view.
Now....you are correct to be sure that getting SCOTUS to overturn Roe will be easier than outright abolition.
But look at the PBA ban....stuck in the courts ....captured and controllable legislatures only work if the Fed judiciary is solidly strict Constituionalist from top to bottom...unlikely
btw....is this forum a ghost town tonight or what?
Amen, bro...
"btw....is this forum a ghost town tonight or what?"
Family stuff and exhaustion I suppose.
Tommorrow the Pajamadeen will return with a vengence to satisfy their addiction ;-)
To me this isn't even a justifiable goal. I understand your point. I simply put the right to self government above the right of the unborn. The process itself must be jealously guarded. Scalia's been carrying the water all these years. Thomas is good, too. GWB's gotta get us 3-4 more. If the states want a constitutional ban on abortion, let them amend the constitution.