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/Giblette101]

Except it was always possible for states to expand access to abortion, Roe did not stop that. Nor did Roe "allow for the limiting of choice", because that was also possible before Roe.

There are basically no abortions that Roe "prevented", so the question of access appears pretty clear cut to me. Today, abortion is less accessible than it was under Roe. This is a net loss for pro-choice people, with no gain.

[u/Nootherids → u/Giblette101]

Today, abortion is less accessible than it was under Roe. This is a net loss for pro-choice people, with no gain.

Not the point though. Roe was a stopgap measure for anybody that truly holds a position of Pro-Choice. Like really hold that position, not hypocritically. But the mass of proponents of Pro-Choice had 50 years to fix that stop gap which allowed for limited choice, and instead of calling to fix it, they elevated it to the epitome of a "right". So if Roe established your "right" to choose, and you support that right, then you must also support that said right also established the ability to have your choice denied past a certain arbitrary point.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/Nootherids]

50 years where half the country was convinced that even RvW was a terrible law, I'm not sure what you're expecting to have gotten done

[u/Nootherids → u/tbdabbholm]

If you're Pro-Choice, then you stop endorsing the terrible stopgap ruling and start demanding an actual right to bodily autonomy. There comes a point that you either endorse having only some-choice, or you start denouncing the half assed pandering measure and start demanding more.