you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's a bit misleading.

It being overturned will not cause that, but instead will allow a number of states more freedom to democratically vote to limit abortions (which many have already done).

Abortion law has many more case precedence impacting them, which will still be in affect. RvW was more of an established precedence of arguably-technically-flawed interpretation of other cases, rather than a direct precedence. The issue will simply fall back to its more core precedence components.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, 22 states have already arranged - via their elected politicians - to restrict abortions. The population of each state did not vote on this (eg. in a referendum). The elected officials voted. Thus all relatively 'red' states will have the politicians in place to vote for strict abortion laws without calling for a referendum. Among the worst examples is in Texas, the state where the original problems developed in 1971. These abortion laws abuse the middle and lower classes.

[–]AXXA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This decision gives the people greater freedom to put forth referendums to restrict or allow abortions.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, democracy decided those states wanted that. We have a representative government system and rarely directly vote on issues.

One person's protection is always someone else's abuse or oppression.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unless you get rid of the matrix at least.