The point is that the state can decide what they want to legalize and what they don't-the point is that the state makes that decision based on the desire of the residents in that state.

Sure there are going to be variations, but there are variations right now as it is, and those variations apply to procedures other than abortions, but nobody is taking the states to court over them.

There are variations in regulations on other medical procedures between the states right now, what exactly makes this one special?

Nothing. My point is that regardless of how one feels about the wisdom of a given ban on certain medical treatments or procedures, if the state next-door can legalize it, what exactly is the point?

Um...this is a federal override.

Indeed it is. But it is no less restrictive on states than was the previous judicially-enacted federal override requiring them to allow all abortions. And because it is not justified by constitutional principles, it is much easier to change through the democratic process.

If I'm wrong and it does, then heaven help us all.

However, under federalist principles, the states have every right to enact policies in the absence of a federal override, and I suspect that such a thing is exactly what will happen here.

Um...this is a federal override.

There are variations in regulations on other medical procedures between the states right now, what exactly makes this one special?

n doing so the court also considered the government’s interest in protecting the rights of an unborn child. It is in this light that the abortion rights activists get the largest strike against them.

......

You think it belongs with the federal government rather than the states?

I said "branches," meaning executive and (primarily) legislative, as opposed to judicial. Unquestionably the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate medical procedures (though Thomas hinted that this was not a valid exercise of federal power, I think 7-8 other justices would disagree, constitutionality of the substance notwithstanding). Whether it chooses to do so is up to our elected representatives in Congress.

Personally, I think 50 different solutions to a question like whether a medical procedure should be permissible is an asinine method for enacting either policy or a sustainable enforcement thereof (particularly when you consider that the right to travel is enshrined in the Constitution). However, under federalist principles, the states have every right to enact policies in the absence of a federal override, and I suspect that such a thing is exactly what will happen here.

Still, this begins put the decision into the branches of government where it belongs

You think it belongs with the federal government rather than the states?

Uh oh, this one could get ugly soon:The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench. The 5-4 ruling said the P...

Still, this begins put the decision into the branches of government where it belongs; abortion should not now be nor should it ever have been a constitutional issue.