The US senate is 2 senators per state. The smaller states are mostly rural conservative issues. The senators that confirmed the three trump justices represent 43% of the population.
Personally I think this is a good thing. My hope is that SCOTUS passing rulings down from the federal level to the states will encourage more (young) people to vote in their city and state elections. The voter turnout for presidential elections is always decent, however for local and state issues there's a clear difference in number of voters. Additionally, younger people don't vote as often in local and state elections. I wish it was not true but there's no arguing the statistics.
Because in contrary to the states' rights argument being touted, the legal theory underpinning the decision opens the door to a federal ban. You might not get the chance to vote for the people that ban abortion for you.
"Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion" in insufficient in a system with an undemocratic Senate. The Senate controls who gets on the Supreme Court, and it requires 60 votes to advance legislation.
In many states that has no effect whatsoever because district boundaries have been gerrymandered to ensure that the party that favors banning abortion will not lose control of the legislature.
I mean isn't that the will of the people in that state? If you live in a state that will be affected, it could certainly be a problem for you. If you don't then you are wanting to subvert their democratic process, no?
Imagine if it was something else like marijuana legalization and whatnot.
> I mean isn't that the will of the people in that state?
That really depends on when those laws were passed, and whether attitudes have changed since then, doesn't it?
Most of these laws weren't passed last year, and the issue has been legislatively moot for 50 years, so you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that those laws represent the current will of the people in every state.
> you are wanting to subvert their democratic process, no?
Yes. I believe there are and should be restrictions on what the majority of a state can pass.
I do want to subvert the democratic process in some specific instances. For example, if the majority of a state I didn't live in wanted to legalize slavery, I would say that they do not get that choice and that they may not.
It's not like this is groundbreaking. There are all kinds of federal laws that preempt state laws on various topics.
Pretty sure CA just had the will of its voters thrown out just yesterday relating to their gun laws, so maybe it's not so sacrosanct.
Some states are pretty big, and have diverse populations- maybe we should make it the choice of the county! Then again, some counties are pretty big, maybe we should make it the choice of the city or town! Then again, some cities are pretty big, maybe we should make it the choice of the block! Then again, there might be a lot of differing opinions even on a single block, maybe we should make it a choice of the individual!
In practice, this ruling bans abortion in those states. Regardless of your opinion of those states, people DO live in them and will be adversely affected. Lives will be ruined, people will die, and ultimately this will probably be counterproductive wrt lowering the number of abortions overall.
Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion.