is talking about reproductive rights
. I'm struck by this line from the quote he uses: "This was the norm until we got Roe v. Wade and the New York law that preceded it."
New York didn't need Roe v. Wade to secure "reproductive rights." The state passed a law already granting them before the Supreme Court's decision.
Is it possible to view Roe v. Wade in terms of federalism. The federal government doesn't need to be involved in every aspect of our lives. If you believe that women should have the right to choose, then lobby your state legistlature as such. If you believe that abortion is murder, then lobby your state legistlature as such.
I strongly support a woman's right to choose, but I can see why someone might see otherwise. It's seems plausable that if we call the killing of a baby murder, then we might call the killing of a fetus murder. The definition of murder is as socially constructed as the definition of marriage and thus no definition can be said to be right in absolute terms.
The great thing about our system of government is that it allows for diversity, an ecology, of ideas. By definition, States are closer to the people and are more able to reflect their ideals and implicit social norms in laws. As a Californian, whose own Supreme Court ruled for the legalization of abortion in 1969
(four years before Roe v. Wade), what right do I have to tell a Texan or a New Yorker how to live?