This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.

The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The incorrect idea here is that the exposing a right to democracy means the right is not taken away. However, this is not what a right is. A Constitutional right is meant to *prevent* the tyranny of the majority from removing our freedoms. Exposing a right to the tyranny of the majority can result in the loss of that right.

One role of the Supreme Court is to protect these rights from laws and the application of laws in such a way that the use the power of representative majorities to remove these rights from individuals. They have abdicated their duty in this case.

Expand full comment

Thank you for a well written and logical article. I agree with returning power to the people and the states. Your ability to change a state representative is much greater and easier than the entrenched corrupt National level representative. That's why Pelosi, Waters, and others from both sides of the isle are never replaced. Spending millions on aThe 250K job? It's about power not representation.

The ability to move is a major point. Those fleeing NY, CA and any other state is doing so based on elector policies. Don't like it, 49 other states available. Not so for much of the world.

People need to get off the couch and get involved with actually doing something to make changes they might want. Our country was not built by people sitting and waiting for the Federal Government to do things.

This decision fits the mold of power to the people.

Again, great article.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won't do for someone who thinks that abortion is a fundamental right. I agree with you that precedent can't always carry the day, otherwise we would be stuck with Plessy vs. Ferguson. However, Plessy was overturned because views on race changed over time. However, nothing has changed since Roe in 1973. In my view, the fact that the abortion issue is as contentious as ever is reason NOT to overrule Roe. Today's court has no more information than the 1973 court or the 1994 (?) Casey decision. To me Roe was imperfect, but probably the best one can do for such a difficult issue.

Expand full comment

Thank you for recognizing both sides of this issue. As someone who spent years pro-choice before changing my mind, I truly appreciate that. Abortion rights appear very different to a person depending on ones worldview and almost always bring strong reactions.

It can be hard to remember that someone who disagrees with you actually means well and wants the world to be a better place too. We live in a country that allows us to disagree on what a better world looks like as well as the means of getting there.

Thank you to everyone at FAIR for bringing humanity back into public discourse. We may not agree, but we can respect each other and recognize each other's humanity.

Expand full comment

Thoughtful piece here. You can’t take away a right that never existed, as even legal scholars who are in favor of creating a “right to abortion” recognize it was essentially conjured out of thin air in this instance.

As far as an eventual “critical mass of agreement” on abortion, unfortunately, I think the recognition of human rights for all human beings will indeed take several generations to sort out. In the meantime, this is the best possible solution -- allow the people of each state to decide what they can live with in regards to killing children.

Expand full comment

Well spoken. This is an attitude that is “fair for all”. We can be a united nation with diverse opinions.

Expand full comment

The law before Griswold wasn’t anti-contraception, it was pro-rights for puritans!

The law before Lawrence wasn’t anti-homosexual, it was pro-rights for Christian purity!

The law before Obergefell wasn’t anti-marriage equality, it was pro-rights for homophobes!

We could do this all day. This post is deeply, deeply disappointing. Please try harder.

Expand full comment

"An obvious one, if it’s important enough to you, is the ability to move to a state that better fits your culture, sensibilities, and nuance." This statement struck me as out of touch. For most women (perhaps the vast majority of women) seeking or needing a abortion, this is not a viable option for economic and other reasons.

Expand full comment

"Winning people over instead of posting snarky memes."

I do wonder how many people have been "won over" to the other side by snarky memes....

Expand full comment

I am disappointed that FAIR chose to publish a piece that ignores history, biology, and constitutional law.

If you want to "achieve unity" on abortion, go back to 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. The opinion was not especially controversial at the time. The only real opposition came from Catholic officials, who were opposed to abortion for the same reason they were opposed to birth control. Actual Catholic women were more likely at the time to get abortions because using birth control was a sin.

The anti-abortion movement (I refuse to call it pro-life) was a deliberate creation of the new religious right. You can read Frank Schaeffer's account, or reporting based on that (e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480). The movement has flourished based on misinformation about women's health, on deceptive Crisis Pregnancy centers, and has finally succeeded by packing the Supreme Court with conservative Catholics who lied to Congress about upholding settled rulings.

Far from strengthening our institutions, the current Supreme Court has cast doubts on its own legitimacy and has thrown the law into a state of confusion. If the Court is going to rely on its biased and incorrect reading of history to overturn precedent, is anything secure?

And what is Shupe's purpose in ending the piece with his attempt to engage Planned Parenthood volunteers in the middle of a demonstration involving late term abortions? Roe v Wade did not legalize late term abortions, which are a tiny percentage of all abortions and done for serious medical issues. If he really cares about engaging the issues, there are more productive times and places.

Expand full comment

Exactly, this is a gift to all sides, correcting a former Judicial Branch over-reach /power grab from long ago. States rights are important and people on all sides of this debate can work hard in their state to have their voices heard and their advocacy / agency should indeed result in legislation at the state level. Isn't that what everyone should want?

Expand full comment

Women are going to die because of this, Jefferson.

Expand full comment

I can't agree that Dobbs:


restored rights. Read it. The first point, "Between five (5) and six (6) weeks' gestation, an unborn human being's heart begins beating," has nothing to do with fetal survival. The heart can go on beating long after the brain dies--and the woman gestating this dead, but still moving fetus is then endangered until the heart stops beating--at which point she is not infrequently in sepsis.

This bill removed rights from women; this bill implicitly defines women as gestators or incubators--breeders.

Expand full comment

Long live Federalism.

Having this issue decided at the National level is lazy.

Constitutional amendments take work, so does enacting legislation at the state level. Those who are upset by this decision have some work to do.

Expand full comment

Thank you for a well reasoned and well stated presentation on the real benefits of the Dobbs decision. Most reasonable thinking occurs in smaller groups where one can politely engage those who take a position opposite yours. The one thing lacking in our society currently is what’s I am doing right now: I am responding, encouraging, engaging and in a respectful and irenic manner.

With you I agree that this decision may force us to stop the social media definition of each side and actually meet and care about people who agree with you AND people who do not agree. That means taking the hysteria, anger, and short-term thinking out of our personal approach to others. Kind of like the old “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I hear that comes from a great Source!

Expand full comment

The left has dominated the bench for decades, and used it to achieve political objectives at the expense of Constitutional integrity. Dobbs is about more than women’s “rights” to an abortion — it’s about the left being forced to sell and debate their agenda in the court of public opinion and to win support politically for their agenda if they are to achieve it. In purple states, I want to see Planned Parenthood and the like defend third trimester abortions as laws are debated. Had the left not been religiously devoted to this dogma, the will on the bench to overturn might have faded away. Instead, with public opinion squarely against these violent acts against the viable unborn, the bench had the fortitude to throw the entire Roe ruling out. And Thomas was willing to go even further by pointing out similarly flawed rulings with little grounding in the Constitution, despite their popular appeal. The issue of whether the Constitution is “a living document” which bends to the winds of the current times (the left’s view and basis for so desperately wanting to stack the bench) vs. a bedrock declaration that has to be amended through law (the originalist right’s view on the Constitution) is the far bigger battle that is brewing and could potentially tear this country apart.

Expand full comment