Methinks you do not quite understand what is going on here. It really isn't a question of the power to decide being moved from the judiciary to the state legislatures. What Alito would do is actually take the power to decide away from "the people" (the actually pregnant individual women) and give that power to the government.
Social conservatives are all potential tyrants. They love to use government power to enforce behaviors. Libertarian conservatives favor a severely limited scope of government power.
Who should decide? The people. The persons. Not the government.
Each human fetus has DNA that is different than the mother's - it is a different human being. It's up to gov't whether it enforces human rights or not, including protecting people's rights to life and property, the bases of civilization.
The Libertarian position is always that one person's freedom ends at the tip of another person's nose - killing is not allowed. The abortion issue is always whether the human fetus deserves human rights, or any rights. If so, it's up to the gov't to decide.
The pro-life folk think protecting the right of the fetus to be born, and to live, is part of the gov't job - as it pretty much had been up thru the 1960s. New York & CA legalized abortion in those states around 1970.
The Roe issue is whether the Federal gov't should decide, and the 10th Amendment is pretty clear that unmentioned things are for the states, and the people.
Without Roe, every state could keep as much or as little abortion legal as they decide. They could even follow Nevada's prostitution lead and let counties decide, tho I doubt if any would.
Methinks you do not quite understand what is going on here. It really isn't a question of the power to decide being moved from the judiciary to the state legislatures. What Alito would do is actually take the power to decide away from "the people" (the actually pregnant individual women) and give that power to the government.
Social conservatives are all potential tyrants. They love to use government power to enforce behaviors. Libertarian conservatives favor a severely limited scope of government power.
Who should decide? The people. The persons. Not the government.
Each human fetus has DNA that is different than the mother's - it is a different human being. It's up to gov't whether it enforces human rights or not, including protecting people's rights to life and property, the bases of civilization.
The Libertarian position is always that one person's freedom ends at the tip of another person's nose - killing is not allowed. The abortion issue is always whether the human fetus deserves human rights, or any rights. If so, it's up to the gov't to decide.
The pro-life folk think protecting the right of the fetus to be born, and to live, is part of the gov't job - as it pretty much had been up thru the 1960s. New York & CA legalized abortion in those states around 1970.
The Roe issue is whether the Federal gov't should decide, and the 10th Amendment is pretty clear that unmentioned things are for the states, and the people.
Without Roe, every state could keep as much or as little abortion legal as they decide. They could even follow Nevada's prostitution lead and let counties decide, tho I doubt if any would.