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.
