The overturning of Roe vs Wade is all about white patriarchal control
I agree that many will try to cast it that way but it really isn't.
One of the failures of the pro-choice group is to try to make complicated what is actually a very simple thing. People who are pro life really believe that abortion kills a baby. They really do. And they oppose it. Nothing more. No patriarchy. No backroom white men meeting to decide how to oppress women. Nothing of the sort.
Having said that.
The Republican leadership can recognize a winning political position when they see one. They can see that this issue guarantees them a significant number of votes. And it does this in states that they targeted to control. So, as a party, they run pro life candidates, particularly in the districts where the sentiment is very popular. This is just smart politics.
And here we are wringing our hands about national woman's rights when the decision did NOTHING about national woman's rights. All it did was tell the states that they can, through the democratic process, decide what the law will be in their state.
So AGAIN FOR THE 2 MILLIONTH TIME. The solution for your beef, if you have one at all, lies in the democratic process in the states. If women want the right to choose they can have it. All they have to do is band together with sympathetic men in their community and elect people who will restore their right. It really is as simple as that. And if one thinks about it this should be much easier than trying to fight a nearly impossible national battle.
If a woman or man who supports the right to choose an abortion lives in an area where the democratic process precludes changing the anti-abortion laws, and the issue is that important to them, they can move.
Sometimes, because of one's opinion, democracy sucks. For example, I do not like the uber permissive gun laws in Arizona. Every time I see a geezer with a belly pack for his Glock or a kid with a gun on his hip at Walmart I am angered. Nevertheless, the issue is not important enough for me to move to a state with stricter gun laws. That is what democracy is all about.
We have a constitution that is very specific. Even so it has been interpreted to death for 200 years. But in all that time the one thing that has remained constant is that the laws that govern our day to day existence proceed from the states. The founders would be shocked at the number of federal laws. They would have expected all of the issues that they could have imagined to have been resolved at the state level.
After he was defeated in the Civil war, Robert E. Lee said the following:
"The interests of the State are therefore the same as those of the United States. Its prosperity will rise or fall with the welfare of the country. The duty of its citizens, then, appears to me too plain to admit of doubt. All should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war, and to restore the blessings of peace. They should remain, if possible, in the country; promote harmony and good feeling; qualify themselves to vote; and elect to the State and general Legislatures wise and patriotic men, who will devote their abilities to the interests of the country, and the healing of all dissensions. I have invariably recommended this course since the cessation of hostilities, and have endeavored to practice it myself."
Even after the ultimate test of states rights in our history, we see that his first remedy lies in electing people to the state legislatures.
So no. This is not about the patriarchy. I defy anyone here to tell me how this law further empowers men more than they already are empowered. If anything it could diminish our power if it unites sufficient women to the cause of woman's rights.
This issue is FAR simpler than all of the discussion seems to want it to be.