“Religious views that are perceived to be imposed become unpopular, and the coercion enforcing them becomes ultimately unsustainable.”

Since Roe v. Wade has been overturned, almost every vote re: abortion has been toward loosening restrictions. Even in my state of Ohio, it looks as though a constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to abortion will be approved in November. So, most, if not all, of the restrictions currently in place in Ohio will be overturned.

The problem with connecting Roe v Wade to the matter at hand is that Roe v Wade is hardly "coerced religious view"; it's bad law that needed to go.



Any merit to be found in connecting it to a narrative of "religious coercion" is due to an improper framing of the narrative by those who really are in control and desire to coerce others to their views.

While RvW might have been bad law, my point is that overturning it may actually have the opposite effect than what pro-life people expected.

Why? Because most people are not convinced abortion should be outlawed. Christians who want to completely abolish abortion are trying to do so by coercion (removal of RvW and by force of law).

People are responding to state restrictions by passing constitutional amendments that supersede these laws and guarantee access to abortion.

So, in the end, abortions may be more common than before.