First of all, those statistics will rapidly go the other way...in back alleys...when these people also ban birth control, which is their next step.

Well, no, their next but one step after the federal abortion ban. The only way to protect people who can become pregnant is to pass pro-abortion federal legislation NOW, but it won't get through the senate.

And saying the women in those states all want their freedom taken away? Saying it's the voice of the people? Let's say somebody wins with 51% of the vote. That means 49% of the population disagrees with them. And that's assuming things aren't so heavily gerrymandered...

I live in a county where 90% of people voted against our current governor. Who, by the way, is pro life and wants an abortion ban. He's also racist. My community did not want him. He proceded to veto pretty every single piece of legislation our representatives were involved in.

The point of things like Roe v. Wade is to protect people from the tyranny of the "majority," whether it's a real majority or not.

That's the major flaw in your thinking, from my perspective.

That women deserve to suffer because other people in their state voted for a misogynist forced birther. Who might not even be an actual majority.

I don't want my governor there. He's corrupt, he's racist, he's misogynistic. But the only way I can not have him as governor is to leave my state. For me, it's an option, albeit not right away. For many, it is not.

The fatal flaw in your argument assumes a functioning democracy and it also says "If you are in the minority and the majority strips you of your rights, it's your fault the majority voted that way." Which is victim blaming.