I find it very amusing that the "A Threat to our Democracy™" card gets pulled out, even when the context is repealing unilateral decisions and bringing the choice to a more local level. People should just be honest and start saying "A threat to ideas I like." At least then I wouldn't have to eyeroll so hard.
All you are doing is saying that you do not believe abortion is essential medicine. If abortion is essential medicine, it SHOULD NOT be a decision made by little fiefdoms, it should be a right.
In most countries, there is no constitutional right to abortion. Here in Australia, abortion is legal nationwide - but there is not and has never been any constitutional right to it; it went from illegal to legal, mostly due to state-by-state legislative reform, in a few cases assisted by non-constitutional state court decisions, such as the 1971 NSW District Court case which decided that the crime of abortion did not include an abortion performed by a medical practitioner with a good faith belief that it was clinically indicated-that decision was non-constitutional, it was purely an exercise in statutory interpretation, and the state Parliament could have easily overturned it by amending the legislation if they had disagreed with it. And, I think Australia is more representative of the average country with legal abortion than the US under Roe v Wade ever was.
There’s an argument that by prematurely removing a controversial social issue from the democratic process, rather than letting that process run its natural course, Roe turned abortion into a much bigger “political hot potato” in the US than it is in most other countries. I think some version of that argument is probably right-in a timeline in which Roe had gone the other way, probably more US states would have legal abortion today than they do in this one. Roe motivated opponents of legal abortion to fight back in a way that a bunch of state-by-state legislative defeats probably never would have.
It's not even about medicine. OP is saying that states (or even smaller) should get to decide if women get ownership over their bodies.
Just change it to literally any other medical procedure and we can see it for what it really is. 'Kentucky bans women from having kidney stones removed'.
Of course, its all in bad faith on the conservative side. The minute the federal government has the opportunity to ban abortion nationwide, these "states rights" and "local control" folks will either shut right up or they will come out and spin some nonsense about how its okay for the federal government to exert control over the states in this case.
