The problem is, it is pro-lifers who are being divided and conquered with the fallacy that States have a right under our Constitution to kill babies.
First of all, this argument removes the entire moral and intellectual argument against overturning Roe to begin with. If a baby is not a person, Roe stands.
Secondly, even if you did manage to overturn Roe, even without the benefit of the only moral and intellectual arguments against it that exist, and pushed it through by purely political means, you will have also removed the only moral, intellectual and constitutional arguments that are possible to overturn it at the state level.
Those who are making this argument, whether they will admit it or not, are accomplishing NOTHING but the continuation of the status quo.
You know the old definition for insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.
It's past time for pro-life folks to argue this from the proper basis, and to reject politicians who propagate fallacies.
It is entirely possible that the decision to overturn Roe vs Wade will also provide Federal prohibition of abortion (as we all strive for), but its also possible that the decision to overturn will not go that far.
A lot of it depends on HOW Roe vs. Wade is overturned. If it is overturned on the basis of judicial activism, then the right to life issue will not be considered at the Federal level and will have to be tackled at the state level. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned on the basis of medical evidence, then I would be surprised if abortion is still allowed in the individual states.
But the biggest challenges to Roe vs. Wade are coming FROM state laws (South Dakota, Kansas, etc) that prohibit or severely restrict abortion. Its looking more and more like Roe vs. Wade will fade away, rather than be overturned directly, BECAUSE of challenges at the state level.
I disagree that its a case of doing the same thing over and over again. Its more a matter of planning for the worst case.
“The problem is, it is pro-lifers who are being divided and conquered with the fallacy that States have a right under our Constitution to kill babies.”
I think we have a semantic problem here. The question is not whether states have a right to kill babies. It’s whether states have a right to allow ABORTIONISTS to kill babies. They don’t. I can see why we are getting into this quagmire of argument. No state has the right to deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. If the states punish people who kill two year olds, then they have an equal duty to punish people who kill unborn babies. So as long as it is illegal to kill an innocent person, it applies to everyone, including the unborn. The problem is that the Roe court deprived the unborn of the legal designation of personhood. It had no right to do that. We have a duty to ascribe personhood to the unborn. We already HAD that quarrel in this nation, and it came down that we don’t have a right to deprive slaves of the designation of personhood. So the issue is that no human being can legally be deprived of personhood. It’s that simple.