It goes back decades if one considers that the members of SCOTUS generally get there by having judicial experience in lower federal courts. The anti-birth movement has been working on this for a long time.

@MizJ
True, but getting from the lower court to the one that really matters only happens as a result of a presidential election and vacancy. Trump vowed to put pro-life judges there with every vacancy. He told his crowds, 'If you don't like me, too bad, you have to vote for me anyway because I'm going to give you the beautiful judges'. And while there was already a vacancy and Trump was campaigning on pro-life appointments, Clinton was repeatedly saying she'd protect Roe. No matter who did what amount of groundwork, all that matters is who gets to make the appointments. It was on the ballot in '16 more than it has been in at least a half century, and enough women didn't care enough about their own rights.

@ChestRockfield McConnell blocking Obama from getting Garland appointed turned out to be devastating.

Voter apathy is a major reason R's get elected, especially in years that are not presidential elections. The elderly vote every time, the key is getting the younger ones to get off their asses.

Anyone that actually listened to the candidates debate in 2016 knew there was only one qualified person. Again apathy was a factor, misogyny was another factor.

@MizJ
All 100% true.

However, everyone knew the winner was going to get AT LEAST one appointment and as we know it turned out to be 3. McConnell held that seat for almost an entire year, so the entire campaign as Trump talked about pro-life judges and punishments for women who get abortions everyone knew that was 100% part of the consequence of their vote. Now if a misogynist didn't care because he hated women and Clinton, or a racist didn't care because he hated Obama, then that sucks we have to live in a country with racist, sexist piles of shit, but women are a majority, and if enough of them cared about their own reproductive rights, we'd be in year 6 of Clinton's presidency and there'd be a pro-choice liberal super majority on the court (among a million other positive effects of Trump not being the president). Unfortunately, women are no more pro-choice than men. In one poll Maher referenced, men are actually more pro-choice now. It's a sad state of affairs all around to be sure, but the people that a law will impact the most need to be the most mobilized by it. As you stated, apathy is a huge problem. If you can't even get the people most affected by it to vote correctly, why would you expect anyone else to? For instance, if there was a constitutional amendment that all Americans got to vote on that would allow white people to own black people, I would hope every last person no matter what would vote against it, but I would EXPECT every single black person to. That may not sound analogous, but it is. Abortion access is not simply about terminating an unwanted pregnancy, and hopefully enough Americans will get a taste of that on a personal level that it will guide their voting for decades to come. Women have already died as a result of overturning Roe. They had parents or children, or spouses, or siblings, friends, coworkers, loved ones that all have to needlessly suffer a little more. Maybe parents of raped children that were able drive to the next state over for an abortion are going to want to maintain that there is a "next state over" for the safety of their children and others. These are some of the most horrible ways imaginable to change a vote, and it would be a travesty if it didn't even work. The Kansas outcome was a glimmer of hope; I hope that trend continues forever.

@ChestRockfield One huge question that looms in my mind is WHY do so many women vote for candidates and a party that is anti-women? Sometimes I imagine there's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome infecting their minds. Is it nature or nurture?

@ChestRockfield I would add ignorance, lack of critical reasoning, brainwashing via right wing media, racism, and religion to stupid. The R party aligning with evangelicals and others that are socially conservative was very effective. The false narrative of all on the Left being baby killers, pedophiles, proponents of open borders gets them off their asses and to the polls.

@ChestRockfield, @mischl My opinion is that it is both nature and nurture, more the latter. Stockholm Syndrome is a factor due to misogyny being so ingrained in our society. It starts in childhood with toys. Girls get dolls and boys get Lincoln Logs has not improved. What message does that send? Build and create seems to be much more positive for mental development than dressing a doll and I would imagine child psychologists would agree.

@MizJ I wonder about that. How do we know that the fact that those toys are taken to isn't wholly or mostly resultant of nature? People can push stuff on children and sometimes they love it, or sometimes they hate it even more as a result. Personally I'm of the belief that neither of those things are under our control, so the exact mixture is more interesting than relevant. Either way I'm still happy about the promise Kansas shows.

@ChestRockfield I played with the Lincoln Logs and had zero interest in dolls. My mother tried several times. I liked the creativity and remain that way. I agree, especially when young the purity of our likes and interests hasn't yet been tainted by society's expectations.