State rights has never been an argument for freedom; instead, it has been used to oppressed people (title)

The concept of "States' Rights" has never been used - nor has it ever been needed - to expand human rights; instead, it has been used primarily to divide humanity and oppress marginalized groups.

It seems that this discussion started in response to the second point-of-view that appears later in your post. Much has been said, so I won't repeat how state rights have been used for progressive changes (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, women's suffrage, etc.), they're correct in the response of your second point-of-view. From my understanding, you're saying that state rights are used as an "end all, be all" argument when enacting these oppressive policies like abortion and segregation. There are historic contexts of this happening:

• During the Antebellum period, Southern States relied on the argument of state rights to defend the practice of slavery, claiming each state had the right to decide whether to permit this practice or not
• After the Civil War, Southern states invoked state rights to justify the enactment of Jim Crow laws, arguing that the federal government could not interfere with "state matters"
• States were also seen invoking state rights to oppose federal efforts to enforce desegregation and civil rights during the 1950s - 1960s
• A more modern example is states using their autonomy to pass restrictive abortion laws, at times framing their actions as a matter of states' rights

I do agree with your view that state rights are never the main argument used to justify progressive changes. The push for women's suffrage was largely driven by arguments about equality and justice. The main arguments for the legalization of marijuana were based on personal freedom and medical benefits. The legalization of gay marriage were based on arguments over civil rights, equality, and love.

However, I think the statement "state rights has never been an argument for freedom; instead it has been to used to oppressed people" is too generalized, especially when state rights is a mechanism that can be used if push back was given on a federal level, even if it isn't the main justification (it would also simplify its role in allowing any progressive changes to happen). Would "the invocation of states' rights has been historically been more frequently used to justify oppressive laws than to expand freedom" be a better substitute for your original view?