Before the absurd ruling in Roe v. Wade, it was a state law matter, just like contraception was before Griswold v. Connecticut, just like sodomy was before Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned the correctly decided by unfortunately named Bowers v. Hardwick!).
What should be, and who gets to decide, are both pretty important questions. With the way federalizing of issues has gone, I am suspicious of federalizing much of anything.
Prior to the enactment of the 13th Amendment, I’m not sure Dred Scott was decided incorrectly. The law of the time was what it was. That’s why it needed to be changed. There was a lot of disagreement over the issue, to say the least.
What changed was the nation becoming aware that they were killing people, American people.
Once people realized the reality, then it made for an entirely different issue.
If innocent people are being murdered under a local law, then it is not local.
The point is that personhood doesn’t depend on state lines. Any law that defines personhood on state lines will suffer the same fate as Dred Scott.
this is why personhood as a state issue (as abortion is), isn’t going to work. At best, it’s a stopgap. You don’t stop being a person just because you crossed the mason dixon line.
The general movement seems to be this. Statists recruit liberaltarians for assault on federal law they don’t like. Liberaltarians go along telling themslves, “it should be a state issue”.
Then what statists immediately do, is push for a federal law which squares with your personal beliefs. You don’t believe that marriage ought to be a man or a woman - so it’s best to fight discrimination and support this new federal law because it squares with what you believe.
Which leads the conservatives to go, huh?
There’’s really nothing in it for us to compromise with liberaltarians on anything. It hasn’t ever worked out well.