USA Today posts a map purporting to show what state-by-state laws might look like regarding "Abortion in a Post-Roe World." Be wary of it. Susan Page, the accompanying piece's author, relies on data provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute to compose the map, but doesn't bother to tell readers that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Advocacy groups (and Planned Parenthood more than advocates abortion) habitually exagerate the dangers posed by their enemies to scare up financial support and public interest. It's nice, for a pro-lifer at least, to think that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would be "likely to significantly restrict access to abortion" in a post-Roe v. Wade world, but it's not going to happen--at least not initially. Grouping, say, Utah and Mississippi with, say, Wisconsin and Missouri, may frighten pro-choice supporters, but it's not painting an accurate picture.
Note that USA Today's map of America after Roe's reversal is not a mirror image of the current map. In other words, post-Roe America, unlike Roe America, is not one color. Reversing the Supreme Court decision that mandated legal abortions will not force the states to make abortion illegal. Roe v. Wade is one-size-fits-all. Reversing Roe v. Wade allows each state to determine what size fits. Roe represents the antithesis of choice. Overturning Roe would provide electorates with true choice--the choice of the laws that govern them. Thirty-three years ago, seven unelected Supreme Court justices took that choice away from the voters (and the officials they elected) of all fifty states.
More interesting than a hypothetical map detailing abortion laws in a post-Roe America is an actual map detailing abortion law in current, Roe v. Wade America. The post-Roe map (like the pre-Roe map) is a multiform of colors reflecting the diversity, and federalist heritage, of the United States. The current map is one color--blood red--indicating uniform law for fifty very different states.
Personally I think this post should be remembered next January in a nod for 'best post of the year.' I presume the relative silence results from your having said it so well...?
Or perhaps you just don't have any regular readers who disagree the way you do when you post about Iraq or immigration or something.
(Where is Gadfly when you need him?)