Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have been overturned by the Supreme Court in their opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1540339085230968834

To me, pro-life versus pro-choice as social issue -- not to mention the perennial philosophical question of when life begins -- misses the crux of the matter and changes no minds. I'd think good social policy would aim to reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortion through the roots -- improving access to contraception and sex education, addressing poverty etc., without pouring gasoline on the fire such as we see today. That's where efforts ought be focused because, even as someone who generally favors reasonable access to safe, regulated abortion, I can very plainly see that it is not an outcome that anyone actually aspires to. The key policy questions in my mind are what precipitates the need for an abortion and what, if anything, can be done about it.

That's a lot of nuance, substance, and logic in those comments, Pennsylvanian.

Many of the people who want the abortion ban also want bans on contraceptives and sex education.

Many of the people who want the abortion ban also want bans on contraceptives and sex education. Nuance on this issue and very many others, as we can see, is a casualty of consumer-oriented, commercialized, commodified culture warfare combined with systematized extremism. That's where we are.

Nuance on this issue and very many others, as we can see, is a casualty of consumer-oriented, commercialized, commodified culture warfare combined with systematized extremism. That's where we are. I'm probably proving someone's point about polarization, but I've sensed more nuance in discussions with pro-choice people than with the pro-control crowd.

I've never been a single-issue voter, but going forward being anti-choice has to be thoroughly disqualifying. My spouse and I have discussed starting a family, and any daughter we might have will already be burdened with exceptional difficulties in life just by being born with a second X chromosome. Abortion access will still be robust in California, but for how long? What's to stop the next GOP Congress from passing a national ban? The current SCOTUS will come up with whatever is ideologically convenient to say it's not actually a matter for the states because reasons. They're never going to be held accountable and have no reason to be intellectually honest.

I think this ruling is a good ruling and will make America a better place. We live in a disposable society and life shouldn't be disposable. Even life that is not perfect (as all are) or perfectly planned (as some are).

I respect the viewpoint. But I have doubts that any sort of paradigmatic view of disposability, if such a paradigm exists, will change as a result. Basic philosophical viewpoints will remain. For those truly desperate and subject to bans, underground, illegal, and unsafe options will remain (and, in the absence of a nationwide ban, differences across states will remain). Fights over things like abortion simply relitigate symptoms without addressing driving issues, which also still remain. With apologies for the crude analogy, for those truly concerned about morality or cultural mores (for which I generally don't think there are good answers in public policy), I'd think a ban on abortion would be more akin to taking an Advil to mask the pain of terminal disease (in the same way permitting access to abortion can itself become a crutch on such issues as poverty). Whether one believes the root problem is poverty, education, access to protection, prevalence of rape and incest, or a crisis of morality or the commodification/disposabilification of human life, or perhaps some combination of some or all of the above, I generally think abortion is but the symptom, not the problem.

I think this ruling is a good ruling and will make America a better place. Making abortion illegal does not make it go away. This is much more true in the post-Roe America than it was pre-Roe. People will get medical abortion pills through the mail. The difference is that women won't have the option to see a doctor in person and they will have to pretend it was a natural miscarriage if they have to get treatment for complications. An honest approach to reduce the number of abortions would receive broad support on the pro-choice side. The "problem" is that doing so would empower women by increasing access to birth control including "morning after" pills and provide financial and logistical support for women who could not otherwise afford a child.

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1603805360514637824

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110384051064378318

https://x.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1842715097627500724 They really can't be consistent at all on this issue. And of course, federal law already bans using federal funds for performing abortions, so all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood are used solely for womens' heath issues. Birth control, STI protection, breast cancer screenings...

I do believe that women should take responsibility having gotten recklessly pregnant to begin, that is not to be pro or anti abortion.