Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stay established law.

So th 14th ammendment is not in the Constituion ?    Cause thats what the non Federalist Society Court based their opinion on in 1973....and reaffirmed again in the 1980's with Kasey.   And this precedent was acknowledged and was said to be resepected at several of the hearing fo the current class of justices.    

They were obviously lying in their hearings about their respect for precedent and specifically the precedent of this particular issue.        

Liars dont make good judges. 

Trump's justices at their confirmation hearings.

Neil Gorsuch when asked if he agrees a fetus is not a human being as Roe-Wade decided. 

"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied 

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Brett Kavanaugh

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Amy Comey Barret

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," 

Abortion can be the law of the land, just on a state by state level.  Privacy has nothing to do with abortion.

Alcohol and pot laws should also be decided at the state level.  If Indiana decides to outlaw booze, which the state could do, I would probably move.  I would still argue that alcohol laws should be left to the states, even though the outcome was bad for me.

Surely, you see the problem. Red states aren't just trying to make the law in their state they are trying to make it in other states by forbidding anyone to travel out of state to get an abortion or anybody that lives in another state from helping that red state person once they leave the red state. 

And privacy has everything to do with abortion. The government shouldn't be involved in personal medical decisions. That should be between you and the medical professional you see.

Uhhh, nooooo...anything that is the law of the land, by definition, does not vary from one state to another. It's the law everywhere.

The right to consume alcohol/drugs isn't on the same level as the right to say what happens to one's own body, so your comparison is silly.

30 states (Ca for one) have laws that say if a pregnant woman is murdered it is a double homocide. is n How does that square with the liberal argument that a fetus is not human?  If a fetus can have a heartbeat & feel pain is not alive and human?

30 states (Ca for one) have laws that say if a pregnant woman is murdered it is a double homocide. How does that square with the liberal argument that a fetus is not human?  If a fetus can have a heartbeat & feel pain is it not alive and human?

The SC has overturned many prior decisions so the idea that the Roe case is cast in stone is weak

Hearts don't feel pain, brains do. So now zygotes have brains?

Please tom, don't run away this time. Tell me where you heard that.

No state will be successful in the long run of preventing folks from traveling to a neighboring state for an abortion.  I'm quite confident that this can't legally be enforced, so this is shouldn't happen.  They may write laws, but they would and should be struck down in court..............as long as judges don't decide to legislate from the bench.  And that won't be a problem, because only liberal judges believe that it's their job to legislate from the bench.

Suddenly, Liberals would cheer the conservative judges for following the Constitution.

A chicken has a heartbeat and can feel pain. We kill chickens all the time.

That a fetus is not a human being isn't a "liberal argument." It's the definition of "fetus," as in, every dictionary, thousands of scientific papers, AND the written opinions of the Supreme Court.

You can bleat over and over and over and over about the Constitution, but it's nonsense to do so. This is a human rights, not a Constitutional issue.