> it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state
The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. I don't see a reason that forcing a woman to expose her medical records to the government or forcing her to carry a baby (at the risk of her own life) is not on similar moral ground.
> I don’t like it, but it’s in line with the principles that the country was founded on.
The country was also founded on disenfranchising women and minorities, and it's deeply undemocratic in the way that land votes rather than people.
The founders strongly urged the country to allow laws to evolve and to amend the Constitution. That is also a "founding principle".
>The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states.
And they didn't do it through the Supreme Court, but through an amendment. If abortion is a right then it should be passed as an amendment declaring it as a right.
I'm not saying it isn't a right. The Constitution / amendments do not create rights. I'm saying if you want to guarantee you are allowed to exercise the right you need to pass an amendment.
The same argument was made about slavery, but a large and powerful subset of the country decided that slavery was not tolerable even in neighboring states. I don't see a reason that forcing a woman to expose her medical records to the government or forcing her to carry a baby (at the risk of her own life) is not on similar moral ground.
> I don’t like it, but it’s in line with the principles that the country was founded on.
The country was also founded on disenfranchising women and minorities, and it's deeply undemocratic in the way that land votes rather than people.
The founders strongly urged the country to allow laws to evolve and to amend the Constitution. That is also a "founding principle".