Actually I believe the problem is that neither party has codified Roe in over 50 years based on the self-serving assumption that both sides need it as a foil in their political games. If the "leadership" in DC had made it a law that any demonstrably safe medical operation is legal on a FEDERAL level and that no state has the ability to get between approved safe medical operations and those who may need them, irregardless of anyone's personal beliefs, there would be nothing for the SCOTUS to decide.

The problem in the United States is that medical decisions are being made by politicians. I can think of few things stupider than that yet the powers that be and those who communicate their message insist we have no choice.

@redbai There's lots of problems with all of this. And there are significant risks associated with codifying Roe, at least for the past 42 years minimum because they would have had to eliminate the filibuster to do so. Plus, the court could strike down federal law as unconstitutional the same way they can overturn precedent. The only thing that would have been stronger than what we had was a constitutional amendment, but there is a zero percent chance that would ever get ratified...

@ChestRockfield Filibuster, you mean the thing that Dems have been hiding behind and Republicans have been abusing for the last 30 years? I find it sad that the politicians of America find their traditions more relevant than the freedoms of Americans. That says more about their character than the issue at hand.

On what basis would the court strike down the law? What in the constitution forbids demonstrably safe medical procedures? Also, a constitutional right simply for the right of abortions is silly and to narrow to be considered seriously. Any such amendment would have to be a constitutional amendment on medical procedures in general and that could bring in quite a bit of quackery to the medical profession. However, a law specifically on approved medical procedures by a medical board of qualified medical experts, instead of politicians attempting to keep their jobs is something that doesn't abridge any constitutional rights that I'm aware of thus making it not a concern for the courts.

@redbai Look, I agree that there's a lot of bad stuff now, and especially historically, associated with the filibuster. But I'd be worried about future awful stuff the the Republicans will do when it's gone. You have to admit there's risk there and compare that to what your "side" will get out of it. For the past 50 years, we'd get a law that said what the judicial precedent already said, so effectively, no gain.
As for how they'd strike it down would be the exact same way they're about to overturn Roe. Hear a case from a lower court ruling about a state law that conflicts with it (and then declare the federal law unconstitutional). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that standard practice for them?

@ChestRockfield The judicial precedent does not guarantee competent medical procedures, it validates the right of privacy in the constitution. Thus protecting the right of privacy between a doctor and patient by extension. The courts is supposed to have decided such a right to privacy is not in the Constitution.

To correct you, state law bends to federal law. If the federal government made a law that cannot be demonstrated to be unconstitutional based on the US Constitution then the state law goes away. Feds trump states, not the other way around.

I'm not sold on the filibuster at all. It creates a false majority for no apparent reason but fear and I'm not scared of the other side given an even playing field. The filibuster eliminates that fair playing field.