The crux of the Dobbs decision is to return the abortion debate to the political process. More specifically, the political processes of the 50 states and the District. Those processes tend to work far better than the federal Congressional process. The law in North Dakota will generally reflect the opinions of the majority of North Dak…
The crux of the Dobbs decision is to return the abortion debate to the political process. More specifically, the political processes of the 50 states and the District. Those processes tend to work far better than the federal Congressional process. The law in North Dakota will generally reflect the opinions of the majority of North Dakota electorate and the law in California will generally reflect the opinions of the majority of the California electorate. The serious business of persuading people will replace the performative demonstrations and statements of the last 50 years. It will take some time, but eventually we'll find ourselves in a place where local preferences are reflected in the law. (I'm betting it will take far less than 50 years!) In the meantime, we won't be treated to a hot debate every time there's a Supreme Court nomination about whether the nominee will uphold Roe. In my opinion, that's a step in the right direction.
The biggest problem with the current situation is that many who are so incensed about this do not understand the constitution and the SC's role in determining the constitutionality of cases, regardless of personal or emotional concerns. I do understand the fact that many are now concerned that some states will place great restrictions on abortion, with the result that those who desire will have to potentially travel to obtain an abortion. I think while there are Americans morally opposed to abortion on demand, many are perfectly fine with access to abortion for rape, incest, and maternal health dangers. As the original poster noted, the opinions on abortion are varied and nuanced, and the legislatures will need to consider their constituent's desires going forward.
The problem with the abortion issue is that both sides work on absolutes and fear mongering to divide opinions even more.
The crux of the Dobbs decision is to return the abortion debate to the political process. More specifically, the political processes of the 50 states and the District. Those processes tend to work far better than the federal Congressional process. The law in North Dakota will generally reflect the opinions of the majority of North Dakota electorate and the law in California will generally reflect the opinions of the majority of the California electorate. The serious business of persuading people will replace the performative demonstrations and statements of the last 50 years. It will take some time, but eventually we'll find ourselves in a place where local preferences are reflected in the law. (I'm betting it will take far less than 50 years!) In the meantime, we won't be treated to a hot debate every time there's a Supreme Court nomination about whether the nominee will uphold Roe. In my opinion, that's a step in the right direction.
The biggest problem with the current situation is that many who are so incensed about this do not understand the constitution and the SC's role in determining the constitutionality of cases, regardless of personal or emotional concerns. I do understand the fact that many are now concerned that some states will place great restrictions on abortion, with the result that those who desire will have to potentially travel to obtain an abortion. I think while there are Americans morally opposed to abortion on demand, many are perfectly fine with access to abortion for rape, incest, and maternal health dangers. As the original poster noted, the opinions on abortion are varied and nuanced, and the legislatures will need to consider their constituent's desires going forward.
The problem with the abortion issue is that both sides work on absolutes and fear mongering to divide opinions even more.