TL;DR

Big Debate in U.S. History - The fight over state vs. federal power has been a big issue for a long time.
Civil War Connection - The South wanted Northern states to follow their slavery laws, proving “states’ rights” was often about forcing others to obey their rules.
Abortion Debate - Similar to before, some want a nationwide abortion ban instead of just letting states decide.
Banning Abortion Doesn’t Stop It -Countries that make abortion illegal actually have more abortions, which goes against what the bans are meant to do.
Too Many Governments, Less Engagement - There are so many levels of government that people can’t keep up, making it easier for the wealthy to take control.
Change Can Happen at the State Level - Things like socialized healthcare could be passed at the state level if more people voted in local elections.
Bottom Line - The fight over states’ rights is usually about one group wanting to control the whole country, not just about giving states more freedom.

States’ Rights, Abortion, and the Erosion of Public Attention

States’ Rights and Federal Power

The debate over states’ rights versus federal authority has been a central issue in American political history. The argument is framed as a battle for individual state sovereignty, but the fact is, it’s been more about the enforcement of particular state laws at the national level.

The South and the Civil War

So many people say that the war was fought over “states’ rights” or “slavery,” but the truth is much more complicated. The South’s insistence on slavery as was tied to a broader political agenda of forcing the North to uphold Southern laws.

The Southern states demanded that Northern states, which had abolished slavery, actively enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This law required citizens and law enforcement officials in free states to return runaway slaves to their masters in the South. The South was not just asking for the right to determine their own laws (States’ Rights), they wanted the North to uphold those laws (National Laws), even when those laws conflicted with Northern values and legal frameworks.

The Debate Over Abortion

Fast forward to the now, and we see similar dynamics playing out in the contentious debate over abortion. The debate centered around the idea that “states should decide” the issue of abortion for themselves. However, the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court in 2022, have shown that this was never really about granting states authority. Instead, the political right’s agenda has evolved into a more aggressive push for national abortion bans.

The immediate rhetoric suggest a “let the states decide” stance, the end goal for many anti-abortion activists is clear: a nationwide ban on abortion. The right-wing movement, despite claiming to champion states’ rights, is seeking to impose a federal law that would restrict abortion access, punish women who seek abortions across state lines, and undermine states that choose to protect abortion rights.

This shift mirrors the South’s insistence on imposing their laws on Northern states. The logic remains consistent: the desire to force other states to uphold and enforce policies with which they disagree. This is an example of how states’ rights arguments can quickly evolve into calls for federal mandates when the political interests of one group are at stake.

Banning Abortion Doesn’t Reduce It

The countries that ban or severely restrict abortion have higher rate of the procedure. This is well-documented: in nations where abortion is illegal, women often seek out unsafe abortions, putting their lives at risk. For example, studies from countries such as Argentina, where abortion was legalized in 2020, show that legalizing the procedure leads to a decrease in unsafe abortions and improves public health outcomes.

In the U.S., these data is ignored by those pushing for stricter abortion laws. The evidence is clear that banning abortion doesn’t prevent it, it just makes it more dangerous. Yet the movement to restrict abortion continues.

The Fragmentation of Government and Citizen Engagement

One of the other problems with the current state-federal system is the fragmentation of government across multiple levels. The U.S. has a federal system that delegates authority to national, state, and local governments. While this system is intended to allow for localized governance, it often results in citizens being overwhelmed by the sheer number of governmental bodies they must engage with. The average person cannot possibly keep up with the policies and decisions made by school boards, water districts, sewage boards, county governments, and state legislatures.

This fragmentation of attention has serious consequences for democratic engagement. The more levels of government there are, the less likely people are to stay informed and involved in decision-making. The result is that wealthier individuals and interest groups—those with the resources to track and influence policy at multiple levels—can capture these governments and shape them to their advantage.

This was starkly evident during the era of corporate deregulation in the late 20th century, when powerful interests often bypassed the federal government by lobbying at the state and local levels. The same dynamics are at play today, as we see major corporations influencing state-level policies on everything from education to environmental regulation.

A Call to Action: Civic Engagement and Socialized Medicine

In an ideal world, citizens would engage deeply with all levels of government. They would show up at town halls, vote in state elections, and participate in local issues with as much fervor as they do in national elections. Unfortunately, the reality is that many people focus their attention on federal elections, leaving state and local governance to be shaped by those who have the resources to push their agendas.

Take, for instance, the issue of socialized medicine. In many other developed nations, healthcare is a universal right, yet the U.S. continues to struggle with a fragmented and inefficient system. While many advocate for national health insurance, there are avenues at the state level that could lead to significant reform. States like California and Vermont have made attempts to create single-payer healthcare systems, but those efforts have often been stymied by a lack of broad public support or by the political influence of the healthcare industry.

If citizens were more engaged in state-level politics, it’s possible that socialized medicine could become a reality in the U.S. But as long as our attention is divided and the political power of wealthy elites is allowed to thrive unchecked, such changes will remain elusive.

Conclusion: A Deepening Divide Between States’ Rights and Federal Power

As history has shown, the conflict between states’ rights and federal power is not a simple dichotomy. Whether it’s slavery in the antebellum South or abortion rights in the present day, states’ rights arguments are often a cover for political agendas that seek to impose a particular set of values on the entire nation. The push for national abortion bans, despite a professed belief in states’ rights, is just the latest manifestation of this dynamic.

At the same time, the fragmentation of government at multiple levels makes it difficult for citizens to remain engaged and informed. The result is that wealthier interests dominate the political system, leaving the average person without a voice. In a perfect world, citizens would engage more fully in state-level politics, creating a stronger, more responsive democracy. But the road to that ideal is long, and it requires a fundamental shift in how we understand our relationship with government, both at the state and federal levels.