It's complicated and I don't have the answers. What I can say is that everyone is playing by the rules of the constitution... the rights granted to women in the wake of Roe weren't codified in law. Roe was shaky, but the Dems didn't codify it in law. The ruling it was based on is a right to privacy and that's a weak argument. The right to freedom of religion is a better argument (see the section on Ginsberg), but it wasn't the argument made.... though I think it should be made as a matter of urgency.

The US has a constitution and that is how laws are weighed... Roe was decided somewhat whimsically and to the other side, it looks like in 1973 the Supreme Court spontaneously decided to legitimise murder of unborn people and then rolled it out wholesale. It was backed up by the 14th amendment under a right to privacy and due process - but with very little constitutional backing. It should've been done as a freedom of religion issue. It would then be a fucktonne harder to overturn. From a Republican POV, this is simply returning the issue back to a democratic mandate.

Abortion is now a matter for the states to decide, the lawmakers in each individual area get to decide what can and can't happen in their states, until another challenge arises. If those things weren't democratically popular, then the people proposing them will be voted out and be replaced. I don't believe that argument (as you'll see in my reply to Michael Kellogg) - as I think the collective demos is out of step with the minority group being affected (pregnant women).