The democrats had FIFTY YEARS to codify roe v Wade but cynically fundraised off it instead.
There is literally no way to do that without a constitutional amendment, and we haven’t been able to get the constitution amended in, what?, over fifty years? And as court cases in states that have passed constitutional amendments has shown, even a constitutional amendment is not sufficient to prevent litigation to unwind the intent of the law. Literally any law that congress could possibly pass to make Roe v. Wade the law* could be overturned by SCOTUS, and Republicans have been working strategically for decades now to build courts that are favorable to overturning laws that they don’t like.
And, BTW, Roe v. Wade was not the law of the land; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was the standard that allowed states to really harshly regulate abortions, particularly when you had courts that were only looking at very narrow issues directly in front of them, rather than intents and realistic outcomes. If PP v. Casey had never happened 30 years ago, then we never would have seen SCOTUS tossing the whole issue back to the states (temporarily, anyways, because I expect the current congress to attempt a nationwide ban).
There is literally no way to do that without a constitutional amendment, and we haven’t been able to get the constitution amended in, what?, over fifty years? And as court cases in states that have passed constitutional amendments has shown, even a constitutional amendment is not sufficient to prevent litigation to unwind the intent of the law. Literally any law that congress could possibly pass to make Roe v. Wade the law* could be overturned by SCOTUS, and Republicans have been working strategically for decades now to build courts that are favorable to overturning laws that they don’t like.
And, BTW, Roe v. Wade was not the law of the land; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was the standard that allowed states to really harshly regulate abortions, particularly when you had courts that were only looking at very narrow issues directly in front of them, rather than intents and realistic outcomes. If PP v. Casey had never happened 30 years ago, then we never would have seen SCOTUS tossing the whole issue back to the states (temporarily, anyways, because I expect the current congress to attempt a nationwide ban).