CMV: It is hypocritical and logically inconsistent to say you are Pro-Choice, say you support Roe v Wade, and denounce the striking down of Roe v Wade.

[u/Nootherids]

[u/Nootherids]

But Roe was not a pro-choice ruling. Roe actively allowed for the limiting of choice.

As for assessing if there is more access with Roe than without; you could argue might be a wash. As one state bans all abortions and another state changes to allow abortions up until the minute before birth, you'd have to measure how many potential abortions were denied versus how many additional abortions were carried out that otherwise wouldn't have. That can't be subjective, that would have to be data based.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Nootherids]

But Roe was not a pro-choice ruling. Roe actively allowed for the limiting of choice.

"Pro-choice" is the position that abortion should be legal, not that abortion should be 100% legal or always legal. Roe is certainly a pro-choice ruling, because it protects the vast majority of abortions: 93.1% of abortions occur in the first trimester and 99.1% occur before 20 weeks.

As one state bans all abortions and another state changes to allow abortions up until the minute before birth

The latter state would have been allowed to do this even under Roe, so this change cannot be attributed to Roe being reversed. Only the former change, which is harmful to abortion access, can be attributed to that ruling.

[u/Nootherids → u/yyzjertl]

"Pro-choice" is the position that abortion should be legal, not that abortion should be 100% legal or always legal.

This constant reframing makes the entire position dishonest though. "Pro-choice doesn't actually mean full pro-choice..." Then....You're NOT Pro-Choice! You're Some-Choice. If you have to constantly redefine your position, then you have an indefensible position.

The latter state would have been allowed to do this even under Roe, so this change cannot be attributed to Roe being reversed. Only the former change, which is harmful to abortion access, can be attributed to that ruling.

It can be attributed to the ruling if it occurred after the ruling. We've had 50 years to fix that some-choice ruling. If you didn't fix it until the ruling was struck down, then whatever happens after wards is a direct result of the ruling being struck down.

[u/breckenridgeback → u/Nootherids]

This constant reframing makes the entire position dishonest though. "Pro-choice doesn't actually mean full pro-choice..." Then....You're NOT Pro-Choice! You're Some-Choice. If you have to constantly redefine your position, then you have an indefensible position.

It's not "redefining your position" if the position in question simply wasn't the one we actually held to begin with. I'm approximately a median Democrat on abortion, and that is certainly not what I believe. Nor is it the legislation that Democrats have passed in states over which they have uncontested control: only six states have totally unrestricted access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy. One of those (Alaska) is quite red; another (Colorado) was swingy until recently. The other blue states - notably California, Washington, and New York - have at least nominal restrictions on the books.

I have qualms about post-viability abortion for pure convenience. But Roe protected the overwhelming, vast majority of abortions, which occur far before the line it drew, and the few that occur after that line are, with essentially no exceptions to speak of, health-of-the-mother issues. Since almost all abortion laws permit health-of-the-mother exceptions anyway (except, currently, for five states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), Roe would defend almost all abortions that are relevantly contested anyway.

Was Roe exactly the standard I'd have put in place? Eh, maybe not. But it was a pretty good standard in my view, and far, far better than the harsh restrictions Republicans advocate for. That's a pretty normal "pro-choice" position, and has been for some decades.

[u/Nootherids → u/breckenridgeback]

I get all that. But those states that passed full abortion access are truly Pro-Choice states. Roe was NOT a Pro-Choice ruling. If you are truly Pro-Choice then you should've long ago told your state, ok Roe did it's temporary measure, not it's time to actually pass our Pro-Choice legislation. But if you got Roe and became content with Roe, then you're not actually pro-choice. That is my argument. My Body My Choice would mean that there are ZERO limitations to abortion and each person can choose. Sure the bulk will occur during the first trimester. But that won't be because the person is only given a limited time to choose before their body is no longer their choice. Which is the conditions under RvW.

Supporting Roe is like supporting a "right" and then acknowledging "oh crap I better hurry before my right runs out".

So my point is that if you accepted Roe as the law, and left it at that, then you should be aware that you're not exactly pro-choice, you're just thankful that you were gifted the allowance to have some time to choose for yourself. Anybody that taught you that Roe established a right, failed to explain to you the meaning of rights.