Completely apart from the subdued nature of this comment, I see all sorts of problems with this observation. First of all, how is the "regulation" returned to "the people" when the pregnant women in question no longer get to have decision-making authority in states that are bringing the hammer down? The regulation is really just returned to state governments, where it will effectively be a case of "tyranny of the majority." This is yet more evidence that DCP is not a "serious" Libertarian. "The people"--according to polls--were against this ruling. DCP loves polls when they show health benefits of religion. It's funny how he has no use for polls when they don't suit his purposes.One writer for National Review terms it “The Greatest Victory in the History of the Conservative Movement,” and I’m not strongly inclined to disagree. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has been a long time coming. But, at last, it has now come. Decisions regarding the regulation of abortion have been returned to the people and to their elected state representatives, where, under God and under the Constitution, they have always belonged. (There is further good coverage at National Review.)
Second, Kulkulkan correctly pointed out in another thread that the question of abortion raises all kinds of vexing questions for Mopologists vis-a-vis LDS theology. First of all, one of the points of mortality is allegedly to "come down and get a mortal body." So if a pregnancy is terminated before there is anything recognizable as a body, then how does this figure? Is it "immoral" because it interferes with this process? And what about the question of "free agency"? I suppose the Mopologists might respond that the agency of the fertilized egg is getting "taken away," but in that case, they are privileging the agency of one over the other. How do they justify that? And to return to Kulkulan's point: what about the so-called "age of accountability"? K. points out that children who die before the age of 8 get "a golden ticket to the Celestial Kingdom." Does this in any way figure into their thinking?
I think that, at the end of the day, the Mopologists don't actually care about any of this all that seriously. Instead, this is more about wielding power over women's decision-making abilities. There is an old, rancid thread amongst certain LDS men where they angrily resent anyone having "casual sex," because if they didn't get to do that, and are "stuck" humping one partner for life, then why should anyone else get to have that kind of fun?