Yup. Follow the money. Will be interesting if the blue states ever decide to stop forwarding income taxes to Washington, claiming they're tired of paying for the red states. They can use the rhetoric of Alberta and Quebec if they wish...
Perhaps compromise might be possible in future generations, cuz it's not a useful word today. Political polarization is pretty impressive worldwide at the moment.
Pretty sure most of our human food comes from places like Mexico. Red state America mostly just grows stuff like corn. Idk if alot of that corn is even edible for people iirc
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. 80% reduction in food would be catastrophic and its puzzling to imagine otherwise. Not to mention the fact that a lot of that same food supply is exported to food insecure countries. It disappearing isn't on the table though.
Candy is not a large part of the American diet so it's not really that meaningful to call out its inclusion.
American agriculture is going to be more important than ever in light of the coming (present?) gas crisis. I'm not well informed enough to make a comment on Mexico but I would wager they're likely in a pretty good spot too.
The post I responded to was about red states being petty and stop selling food to blue states. That's like real food like produce. Not total food and beverage.
But sure looking at something expensive like candy
That seems significant for all good and beverage sales. Nevermind alcohol, which I'm pretty sure was included in that first 80% number. Look at a supermarket, how much of that is real food. I think my local one has 3-4 aisles of snacks and candy
I can't tell what your point is then? The petty red state question was dumb, sure.
80% of american food and beverage is significant. And more significant than 20% of it, obviously.
Candy is a pretty small portion of the food people eat even if there's a lot of shelf space on the supermarkets. Most food that people eat are grains and meat, which is largely sourced internally.
The imported stuff is mostly fresh produce which is nice but also not really natural or essential to have year round.
The red states might grow it, but who owns the farms? I'm willing to bet there's not a lot of family farms left, and the conglomerates will go wherever the cash is best. Same with oil, as it's fungible.
And the blue states have plenty of money to buy food from wherever they like. The minority of America picking this fight are going to have a difficult time dealing with the results if they ever get their way.
The country doesn’t need this line of thinking and it benefits nobody but Putin.
I would like to see how it breaks down by red vs. blue, and I suspect there might be a slight edge for team red, but California in particular fills an important niche of supplying most of the non-grain foods, and can produce food year round.
However California is probably going to lose its status as #1 as aridification continues.
This argument doesn't hold much water when the people in California making the food are overwhelmingly red themselves. What happens if they leave, or decide to make their own little state?
We shouldn't be bragging about punishments of blue vs red at all, because should such a thing occur everyone is going to have a much worse quality of life, blue or red.
The land makes the food, the people just tend the land. If the people move out new people move in to fill that vacuum. That's exactly what happens now with migrant labor.
Do you also think that factories make widgets, and the people working there just press buttons?
Text editors make software, and programmers just mash on keyboards?
There’s a lot more to farming than tending to the land. Crops don’t magically grow. Your simplistic view of it is both insulting to those who farm and dangerous.
Once labor gets commoditized, yes. The factories do make the the widgets, with the people working there pushing buttons. That's why there's all this hand-wringing about immigration, cheap foreign competition, unions dissolving, worker bargaining power, and capitalist abuses. If the workers made the products they'd just find new factories and this wouldn't be an issue.
Programmers for now do make the software, in that there's a dramatic difference in the ability of a good programmer vs. a mediocre programmer to actually complete a project, and they're compensated accordingly. That'll likely change in a decade or so, though. Then the software will be largely already written, and it'll be maintained by management structures with commodity programmers slotting into roles in the org chart. It's already happening for many roles.
It's a perspective shift from "here's a laborer making a product" to "here's a role for how the product is made, and any number of different laborers could slot into it", and it happens when there are enough people with the skills to make the product that any one of them can slot into it.
So that 50% more is by revenue I think - probably difficult to find, if it even exists, but I'm curious what that table looks like sorted by calories instead of dollars.
Thats tough to quantify. Are all calories equal? Middle America produces federally subsidized commercial corn used for HFCS, feedlots and "bio-fuels". First of all are those calories really "food" compared to what California grows? Maybe only in emergency situations (which is partially why it was subsidized in the first place). Second of all, in this hypothetical situation, you'd have to take away the federal subsidies anyway since the blue states are not paying anymore. How much of middle america goes bankrupt if this happens? Wouldn't that lower the production output numbers?
"Dollar value" and "calories" are two different things.
California produces a lot of high-dollar-value luxury crops, but doesn't actually produce many of the calories that stand between the population and starvation. It doesn't even produce enough calories to feed itself.
I have no idea what actual percentage of the state's land is farms, but...I'm certainly surrounded by them. Many miles of farmland; plenty, at least, to supply the people around here, if used efficiently.
The idea that "blue states are urban" and "red states are rural" is just plain wrong. There are cities in red states (though some red states don't have any large cities in them), and there's plenty of rural land in blue states.
I've seen this meme a lot, with wildly different calculated values and outcomes. (But always confirming the political biases of the bubble it was shared in, of course.)
I'd really like to see a rigorous calculation and explanation behind the decisions, because I think this could be a useful stat for comparing states' fiscal success relative to one another.
For example should the calculations include federal spend on federal employees? It's not really a reflection of the state's actions if the federal government happens to have a big agency headquarters there inflating the 'federal spend'.
I don't expect this kind of thing to happen. The very ideology of democrat's platform is : be generous and kind and help people.
The Democrats in office can barely agree on even basic moves to get public approval, good luck ever getting them to agree on directly harming millions of people just because they don't agree with how they vote.
> Will be interesting if the blue states ever decide to stop forwarding income taxes to Washington, claiming they're tired of paying for the red states
It will be even more interesting if the red states then stop sending the blue ones things like food, water, and energy.
It may turn out that those things are more important than simulated pieces of green paper.
“I think Mississippi has led on social and cultural issues for years,” says [Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves], and he plans to keep that lead. Though he declines to say which policies he and the Mississippi legislature will target next, “there will certainly be opportunities for us to do [more].”
Meanwhile, one area that Reeves and co is most definitely not leading on is making sure that the capitol city of his state, with a population of almost 200,000 people, has potable, running water. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/mississippi-water-clim...
The lead that Tate Reeves is talking about is definitely in the opposite direction of what your implicit political stance's definition of taking the lead is.
It's not the classic left definitions like minimum wage increase, or potable water, or expected age, or access to a public defender.
I'm guessing it's things like having strict abortion control (or he would term it life preservation), or gun rights, or ability to reverse the Trump election results. Or, perhaps shockingly to the left view, "leading" in pushing laws so towns don't have the obligation to give potable water (and can avoid getting sued for doing so)!
Call me a "doomer" or whatever, but I think the inevitable demise of the US empire starts with balkanization (i.e., the states splitting into their regional factions). Basically like a second civil war, except it will look quite different and probably won't involve actual warfare. More like a slowly escalating defiance of laws at a regional level. Without wading into the trap of specific examples, I'd say we're already seeing this play out.
I would recommend reading up on American history a bit more. The US has always been a regionalist country, with a weak federal government. As for the decline of the US empire — not sure what you mean here, but if you mean the waning of American influence abroad, that’s already happening and it’s voluntary. If you mean the decline of the country internally, such as reduction in quality of life and decline in GDP/output, this is already happening with the demise of globalization, but the US will be the least impacted, not most, owing to strong demographics, variation in climate, rich natural resources, and ability to integrate immigrants.
Don't get me started on traffic laws. People lost their minds on the roads around the time the COVID lockdowns started. I've always been anti-car, but the kind of insanity I see all the time now (people running red lights, driving on the wrong side of the road to go around traffic, driving on the shoulders on the freeway to bypass congestion) happens almost every single time I get in a car now. In particular, people here run red lights and drive on the wrong side of the road to make left turns constantly.
I see this as a win-win for the following reasons:
1) People in California don't want people in Texas influencing their politics, and vice-versa.
2) The "Balkanization" of the U.S. will weaken the international influence of the U.S. empire, allowing developing nations and others to evade the grip of Western capitalists and neoliberalism, allowing them to pursue their own development path according to their material reality.
The unipolar world that merged on the post-Soviet international stage is dead. Stick a fork in it.
> allowing them to pursue their own development path according to their material reality.
Development path? What do you think enabled there to be a development path for these nations in the first place? The “material reality” of the every nation on earth save for like, France, the US, NZ, Argentina is not development… it’s de-industrialization. The unipolar world your celebrate the demise of was responsible for the greatest and fastest increase in the quality of life the world has ever seen… ever. You’re right though. It’s over. As is the influence of the US abroad, though not by accident, but by choice.
I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. I would agree on both points, as long as the relationship stays competitive and not confrontational, both at the state to state level, and country to country. I realize that is a big "if", but as long as everyone stays cool and keeps working on their own version of utopia, it will work out.
Surely they don't mean the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th amendments, or the Comity Clause. Maybe there is another amendment that says ICE can kick in your door if they saw non-white people loitering?
I think you think you’re dunking on me, but I would genuinely like to understand the point you’re making. It will probably negate mine and I’m perfectly fine with that.
Some of violations of the second amendment, some with immigration law. later, before a row versus Wade was dismantled, disallowing abortions when they were federally permitted.
Generally, banning the right to carry. It's no more constitutional than to ban the right to free speech.
The first cities to be sanctuary cities violated Federal and usually state law by refusing to prosecute illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a federal crime, period.
We have a mechanism to overturn laws we don't like. That's not it.
Abortion bans impact liberals and others who didn't vote for Trump in red states. The majority of the country wants abortion to be legal. Making people suffer for the bad decisions that their states make is...disgusting.
Scathing contempt, dripping bile, and caustic blamecasting mark those with no awareness of their own culpability. Mind your response with great care, lest you find yourself to be at the root of the problem.
Just a reminder that the north and the south have always been in contention since the very founding of this country. We have a bicameral congress as part of the great compromise between high population northern states and low representation (enslaved didn't count) southern states. So you have 1 legislative body that closely matches the will of the voters and you have the other legislative body who matches the will of landowners. 1 voter in Wyoming has almost the same influence as 200 voters in California. And for a representative government, in the long run, this is unsustainable. Due to this and the impending climate change crisis I believe the US won't exist as we know it in the 22nd century.
The real issue is that each party wants to blame other side and for all the problems. Negotiations and compromise are non-existent, and this is the real reason why progress is people feel that their progress is getting stagnated.
This isn’t completely true. There are some high profile issues that are deadlocked on ideological grounds, but there’s legislation passed every session through compromise and bipartisanship.
I really wish people would stop using "conservative" as a synonym for "Republican". In 2022, the Republican party has no claim to the term conservative - about the closest thing one can say is that it used to be conservative, but as the world still continued to change it has now became frustrated and regressive. Conservatives respect institutions and customs - they most certainly don't reject and undermine them.
I personally have always been intrinsically libertarian to my core, occasionally shifting perspective between left-libertarian and right-libertarian, but always wanting to disrupt existing institutions in favor of individual freedom. In 2020 I found myself voting for mainstream federal candidates for the first time in my life, arising from a sense of genuine conservatism. I had taken our institutions for granted, and now they seem to be under coordinated attack - by forces that aren't looking to reform and liberate, but rather to destroy and subjugate.
I haven't been able to tease out how much is simply due to me getting older, but unfortunately I see this trend continuing. In 1973 Roe v Wade was decidedly radical. Five decades and nearly two generations later, women's right to reproductive medical care is an integral part of our society. True conservatism respects that.
I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. It looks like the "conservative" doctrines were mostly held in bad faith, used almost solely as verbal cudgels, rather than as ideals to aspire to or guide policy.
I'd also like to gently point out that you're doing a "no true scotsman" argument here.
That seems markedly less charitable than what I said. You seem to be implying that there is no merit whatsoever in any conservative values. This may be great for rallying your own mob to fight, but isn't useful for convincing others or critically refining your own thinking.
I'm all for refining my own thinking, but over the last 6-8 years, when I've tried, I've gotten a lot of insults. The most memorable was "latrine level liberal". I hadn't done anything to indicate my biases, merely asked a question about apparent contradiction.
The closest I've come to a decent conversation, when trying to understand current conservatism, was a DM conversation on Reddit. I didn't learn a whole lot, the dude was basically operating on reflexes and subconscious.
I'd really like to understand, but if repeated attempts end up with me getting explicitly insulted, I have to conclude uncharitable things.
I had the advantage of doing this earlier, after the Iraq War. I was taking a cross country trip, obviously talked with a lot of people who were pro-war, and learned to just let it pass over me and accept where they were coming from.
The sharply insulting reactions you're getting are due to the hypocritical hysteria currently gripping the Republican Party. I don't think you will be successful at discussing philosophy at this time, especially online. The current energy is driven by hypocrisy and shallow thinking. The people that haven't been swept up by it are somewhere between being aghast where the party has gone, or sitting back and hoping for collapse.
My ultimate conclusion was that the pro war middle of the country is just driven by a different emphasis on issues and values, but still a core of ultimately wanting to be left alone (ie freedom). The Iraq War was not their issue, and the people on TV said to support it, so they did. Seeing this pattern also helped me critique my own bubble's politics for it.
Unfortunately, that "TV" has now turned into Facebook, where the message is not even curated by the US's power structure but rather whatever narratives play to people's biases. Narratives pushed by malevolent foreign power structures whether bona fide countries or just non-allegiant capital looking to loot. Still, I have to believe there is a core of conservatism that won't be swayed by the reactionary populism, and will eventually succeed at ousting the destructive elements from their party or at least leaving themselves. The alternative is collapse.
"Mr Reeves boasted of his state’s other bans: on vaccine mandates; on teaching critical race theory; on transgender students taking part in school sports on the basis of the gender with which they identify. “I think Mississippi has led on social and cultural issues for years,” he says, and he plans to keep that lead."
Let's not gloss over being the poorest state in the union also qualifies as leading the poverty rankings. Also having the lowest life expectancy is another. Oh, and dead last in public education. Way to lead Mr. Reeves! You're the best at being the worst!
I love that you're being downvoted for a very basic fact: The governor of this state cares more about making sure trans kids can't feel comfortable in school than actually making sure school provides value to those kids.
counter opinion: forcing states to decide on abortion will turn the tide in democrats favor nationwide, creating a different sort of unification.
While in the short term overturning RvW looks awful, and has terrible consequences for people in the present, in the long term the states will one-by-one elect politicians which protect that right. Some of it will happen in the next election, but even more will happen as the consequences of all these unwanted babies becomes clearer to both the woman bearing them, and the men forced to pay child support.
The most common argument to my argument above is that some conservative states are deeply rooted in religion and wouldn't allow that. My counter to that is, you are discounting how many "pro-life republicans" have hypocritically obtained abortion while also railing against it. They will go to the voting booth and be just as hypocritical, likely criticizing in public the very same 'liberal' they voted for in private.
My crystal ball says it's tired now, till next time.
This is an overly simplistic model of the politics. Roughly a third of Republicans are pro-choice. Roughly a third of Democrats are pro-life. And half of the country identifies with neither political party. Some parts of the country are socially conservative and politically libertarian, with a cultural norm of not legislating personal beliefs. These groups are not uniformly distributed throughout the country.
Right. But the democrats that are pro-life will still vote democrat, because they are democrats. The independents are typically pro-choice precisely because they do not like government over-reach...and then it's those 1/3 of republicans that are going to turn the tide when they privately vote counter to their public identity.
There are further nuances. While a majority favors legal abortions in early stages, there is a very substantial group (across the political spectrum) that disapproves of late stage abortions (except in unusual situations, such as to save the mother's life).
The issue has been polarized into two groups:
1) a single cell is a human being
2) a nine month fetus isn't a human being until the last foot has emerged from the birth canal.
Many, perhaps most, think both of these positions are utterly ridiculous.
> … in the same session that it overturned Roe the court also struck down a New York gun law. There seem to be rights the court’s Republican majority wants the states to have and others it is less keen on.
The article makes the Court's decisions here sound like a matter of personal preference. It doesn't mention their stated reasoning (even if only to argue against it), which, IIUC, is something like: the states have to follow the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights explicitly lists the right to bear arms. In contrast, nothing in the Bill of Rights – or anywhere else in the Constitution for that matter – mentions abortion.
75 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadPerhaps compromise might be possible in future generations, cuz it's not a useful word today. Political polarization is pretty impressive worldwide at the moment.
see stuff like this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/dining/fruit-vegetables-i...
Or if you want the latest raw data from the USDA Economic Research Service, you can grab it here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-u-s-tr...
It's true, many fresh produce foods are imported, but the majority (~80%) of food consumed in the US is domestically produced / grown.
Candy is not a large part of the American diet so it's not really that meaningful to call out its inclusion.
American agriculture is going to be more important than ever in light of the coming (present?) gas crisis. I'm not well informed enough to make a comment on Mexico but I would wager they're likely in a pretty good spot too.
But sure looking at something expensive like candy
About 37billion in sales https://www.foodbeverageinsider.com/market-trends-analysis/u...
Compared to 70ish billion of produce https://theproducenews.com/headlines/produce-department-sale...
That seems significant for all good and beverage sales. Nevermind alcohol, which I'm pretty sure was included in that first 80% number. Look at a supermarket, how much of that is real food. I think my local one has 3-4 aisles of snacks and candy
80% of american food and beverage is significant. And more significant than 20% of it, obviously.
Candy is a pretty small portion of the food people eat even if there's a lot of shelf space on the supermarkets. Most food that people eat are grains and meat, which is largely sourced internally.
The imported stuff is mostly fresh produce which is nice but also not really natural or essential to have year round.
The country doesn’t need this line of thinking and it benefits nobody but Putin.
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844
I would like to see how it breaks down by red vs. blue, and I suspect there might be a slight edge for team red, but California in particular fills an important niche of supplying most of the non-grain foods, and can produce food year round.
However California is probably going to lose its status as #1 as aridification continues.
We shouldn't be bragging about punishments of blue vs red at all, because should such a thing occur everyone is going to have a much worse quality of life, blue or red.
Text editors make software, and programmers just mash on keyboards?
There’s a lot more to farming than tending to the land. Crops don’t magically grow. Your simplistic view of it is both insulting to those who farm and dangerous.
Programmers for now do make the software, in that there's a dramatic difference in the ability of a good programmer vs. a mediocre programmer to actually complete a project, and they're compensated accordingly. That'll likely change in a decade or so, though. Then the software will be largely already written, and it'll be maintained by management structures with commodity programmers slotting into roles in the org chart. It's already happening for many roles.
It's a perspective shift from "here's a laborer making a product" to "here's a role for how the product is made, and any number of different laborers could slot into it", and it happens when there are enough people with the skills to make the product that any one of them can slot into it.
"Dollar value" and "calories" are two different things.
California produces a lot of high-dollar-value luxury crops, but doesn't actually produce many of the calories that stand between the population and starvation. It doesn't even produce enough calories to feed itself.
I have no idea what actual percentage of the state's land is farms, but...I'm certainly surrounded by them. Many miles of farmland; plenty, at least, to supply the people around here, if used efficiently.
The idea that "blue states are urban" and "red states are rural" is just plain wrong. There are cities in red states (though some red states don't have any large cities in them), and there's plenty of rural land in blue states.
Welcome to nuance.
Thinking of it state by state is a mistake, though, isn't it? Are "blue" states net contributors to federal tax if "red" citizens move out?
I'd really like to see a rigorous calculation and explanation behind the decisions, because I think this could be a useful stat for comparing states' fiscal success relative to one another.
For example should the calculations include federal spend on federal employees? It's not really a reflection of the state's actions if the federal government happens to have a big agency headquarters there inflating the 'federal spend'.
The Democrats in office can barely agree on even basic moves to get public approval, good luck ever getting them to agree on directly harming millions of people just because they don't agree with how they vote.
It will be even more interesting if the red states then stop sending the blue ones things like food, water, and energy.
It may turn out that those things are more important than simulated pieces of green paper.
Meanwhile, one area that Reeves and co is most definitely not leading on is making sure that the capitol city of his state, with a population of almost 200,000 people, has potable, running water. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/mississippi-water-clim...
The lead that Tate Reeves is talking about is definitely in the opposite direction of what your implicit political stance's definition of taking the lead is.
It's not the classic left definitions like minimum wage increase, or potable water, or expected age, or access to a public defender.
I'm guessing it's things like having strict abortion control (or he would term it life preservation), or gun rights, or ability to reverse the Trump election results. Or, perhaps shockingly to the left view, "leading" in pushing laws so towns don't have the obligation to give potable water (and can avoid getting sued for doing so)!
Jackson’s inept local government failed to fix a known issue because they didn’t want to raise taxes to risk re-election.
Now Federal taxpayers will be on the hook to bail them out. So… I guess mission succeeded?
The cracks are forming in things as simple as traffic laws. Tons of egregious, selfish actions and little-to-no enforcement.
It sounds anecdotal, but there's plenty of data to back this up: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-tra...
1) People in California don't want people in Texas influencing their politics, and vice-versa.
2) The "Balkanization" of the U.S. will weaken the international influence of the U.S. empire, allowing developing nations and others to evade the grip of Western capitalists and neoliberalism, allowing them to pursue their own development path according to their material reality.
The unipolar world that merged on the post-Soviet international stage is dead. Stick a fork in it.
Development path? What do you think enabled there to be a development path for these nations in the first place? The “material reality” of the every nation on earth save for like, France, the US, NZ, Argentina is not development… it’s de-industrialization. The unipolar world your celebrate the demise of was responsible for the greatest and fastest increase in the quality of life the world has ever seen… ever. You’re right though. It’s over. As is the influence of the US abroad, though not by accident, but by choice.
The first cities to be sanctuary cities violated Federal and usually state law by refusing to prosecute illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a federal crime, period.
We have a mechanism to overturn laws we don't like. That's not it.
Like bearing a child after choosing unprotected sex?
This isn’t completely true. There are some high profile issues that are deadlocked on ideological grounds, but there’s legislation passed every session through compromise and bipartisanship.
I personally have always been intrinsically libertarian to my core, occasionally shifting perspective between left-libertarian and right-libertarian, but always wanting to disrupt existing institutions in favor of individual freedom. In 2020 I found myself voting for mainstream federal candidates for the first time in my life, arising from a sense of genuine conservatism. I had taken our institutions for granted, and now they seem to be under coordinated attack - by forces that aren't looking to reform and liberate, but rather to destroy and subjugate.
I haven't been able to tease out how much is simply due to me getting older, but unfortunately I see this trend continuing. In 1973 Roe v Wade was decidedly radical. Five decades and nearly two generations later, women's right to reproductive medical care is an integral part of our society. True conservatism respects that.
I'd also like to gently point out that you're doing a "no true scotsman" argument here.
The closest I've come to a decent conversation, when trying to understand current conservatism, was a DM conversation on Reddit. I didn't learn a whole lot, the dude was basically operating on reflexes and subconscious.
I'd really like to understand, but if repeated attempts end up with me getting explicitly insulted, I have to conclude uncharitable things.
The sharply insulting reactions you're getting are due to the hypocritical hysteria currently gripping the Republican Party. I don't think you will be successful at discussing philosophy at this time, especially online. The current energy is driven by hypocrisy and shallow thinking. The people that haven't been swept up by it are somewhere between being aghast where the party has gone, or sitting back and hoping for collapse.
My ultimate conclusion was that the pro war middle of the country is just driven by a different emphasis on issues and values, but still a core of ultimately wanting to be left alone (ie freedom). The Iraq War was not their issue, and the people on TV said to support it, so they did. Seeing this pattern also helped me critique my own bubble's politics for it.
Unfortunately, that "TV" has now turned into Facebook, where the message is not even curated by the US's power structure but rather whatever narratives play to people's biases. Narratives pushed by malevolent foreign power structures whether bona fide countries or just non-allegiant capital looking to loot. Still, I have to believe there is a core of conservatism that won't be swayed by the reactionary populism, and will eventually succeed at ousting the destructive elements from their party or at least leaving themselves. The alternative is collapse.
Let's not gloss over being the poorest state in the union also qualifies as leading the poverty rankings. Also having the lowest life expectancy is another. Oh, and dead last in public education. Way to lead Mr. Reeves! You're the best at being the worst!
While in the short term overturning RvW looks awful, and has terrible consequences for people in the present, in the long term the states will one-by-one elect politicians which protect that right. Some of it will happen in the next election, but even more will happen as the consequences of all these unwanted babies becomes clearer to both the woman bearing them, and the men forced to pay child support.
The most common argument to my argument above is that some conservative states are deeply rooted in religion and wouldn't allow that. My counter to that is, you are discounting how many "pro-life republicans" have hypocritically obtained abortion while also railing against it. They will go to the voting booth and be just as hypocritical, likely criticizing in public the very same 'liberal' they voted for in private.
My crystal ball says it's tired now, till next time.
The issue has been polarized into two groups:
1) a single cell is a human being 2) a nine month fetus isn't a human being until the last foot has emerged from the birth canal.
Many, perhaps most, think both of these positions are utterly ridiculous.
The article makes the Court's decisions here sound like a matter of personal preference. It doesn't mention their stated reasoning (even if only to argue against it), which, IIUC, is something like: the states have to follow the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights explicitly lists the right to bear arms. In contrast, nothing in the Bill of Rights – or anywhere else in the Constitution for that matter – mentions abortion.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/red-states-blue-...
But also, most states are purplish and the ones that are purer red are very sparsely populated:
https://purplestatesofamerica.org/