This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally.
Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad.
So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.
Then I would ask that you trust people to read a whole sentence.
> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.
Have you read the GOP platform for Texas?
There is no scientific basis to support the idea that a 38 week old fetus isn't viable or that it somehow only gains sentience once it passes through the birth canal. So then you have to draw a line somewhere, a line which will likely change over time as medical advancements occur - and so that is a matter for legislatures to handle.
There just isn't a constitutional basis for Roe, and all defenses of it are based on emotion not logic.
The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is <no>. And the debate will not be along the lines of mainstream medical empiricism.
As a democratic plurality, we ought demand that such state medical decisions be anchored on secular & empirical reasoning which groups from various religious backgrounds can understand, but this will not happen in states like Texas. What we do see in Texas is movement further away from the mainstream medical consensus and ethical standards of our western peers.
As for a constitutional basis for the right to privacy, I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I do not pretend to be fluent with constitutional law, especially not enough to denigrate arguments as being emotional and illogical on the merits of the law. If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.
I am also not a medical professional. That is why I rely on my doctor to consult with professional bodies of science and medicine to deploy treatment in accordance with mainstream practice.
We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world.
In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover the sentience of a 39 week old fetus for instance..
I actually think most people are in agreement on the issue, they just don't realize it. A tiny percentage of people support no regulations at all on abortion (ie even an elective abortion at 39 weeks with no medical necessity would be legal), and an equally tiny percentage on the other side who would even be against Plan B or abortions in the first few weeks. The problem though is then that means you have to draw a line somewhere on non-medically necessary abortions (8 weeks? 24 weeks? Something else) and that isn't something that the Roe decision is able to address, so we have to look to legislatures (state and Congress) to do their jobs.
You talk about "reading" things, but this is my original post:
> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.
> This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
> Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
I have talked only on the consequences which are to follow in states like TX and how state medical policy ought be conducted — in accordance with mainstream medical practice as developed by national and western consensus among professional medical and scientific bodies. This is precisely the sort of state-level debate that you allege to support, and yet are completely ignoring.
This isn't the consensus though. For instance, at 39 weeks very few people consider the baby irrelevant in the "private decision between mom and doctor" any more than they would that of a 1 week old baby. By that point in the pregnancy, the baby has to be considered. It is no longer just the mother and doctor. If you think it is, then what magically happens in the birth canal to convey sentience?
Are we pretending there is no difference in a 3 week old zygote and a 39 week old fully viable child that has yet to exit the birth canal? Now do you see the issue? At some point, there are more than 2 beings (mom and doctor) involved in and affected by the decision..
Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.
We definitely need to regulate it.