> RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. W

> RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout. If by 'tenuous footing', you mean that there is not legislation protecting it, I understand what you are saying. However, per stare decisis (respecting judicial precedent), the general idea of Rowe has been settled and stable for a long time. Public opinion has been relatively stable too. You said "Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo.". Congress is a body, yes, but it is also comprised of parties and coalitions that disagree. Saying a "split-brain" body "chose" to keep the status quo isn't a very useful way of thinking about it. A better explanation (one that conveys more information about what is happening) is that the parties strongly disagree, and the party lines have gotten firmer over time. In February (this year, 2022), the House passed a law codifying abortion with Democratic support. It failed the Senate 46-48 due to Republican opposition.