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.
We should make the 15 week deal (with exceptions for life of mother). The sad thing is that we should have done it long ago when we could have extracted something in return for the compromise.
The problem with the Dobbs decision is that the Roe framework did work. Allowing state governments to impose restrictions after viability did let that aspect of the process remain within the whim of popular majorities. However, when you consider that this is a process unfolding within a woman's body and the growth of a fetus is entirely dependent upon the woman's biological functioning, to claim there is no constitutional right of privacy that shields a woman from legislative majorities additionally misses the overall purpose of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Right was meant to be a restraint on government, whether or not government was acting based on majority opinion or not. If 99.9% of the residents of a given area said that atheists should not be permitted to run for office, the size of that majority would not overcome a nonbeliever's constitutional right to seek office.
Also the reality of unwanted pregnancies for minors are such that if a minor must notify her parents or seek their actual consent before she can terminate a pregnancy, she may be physically prevented from getting the abortion. Kids shouldn't be forced to give birth to kids.
The issue here is that Roe allowed for restrictions after viability, whether or not a state availed itself of this legislative leeway for enacting them. I think it was not too much to ask of anti choice activists to seek no more than than this and otherwise allow women free rein over a process occurring entirely within their bodies.
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.
We should make the 15 week deal (with exceptions for life of mother). The sad thing is that we should have done it long ago when we could have extracted something in return for the compromise.
The problem with the Dobbs decision is that the Roe framework did work. Allowing state governments to impose restrictions after viability did let that aspect of the process remain within the whim of popular majorities. However, when you consider that this is a process unfolding within a woman's body and the growth of a fetus is entirely dependent upon the woman's biological functioning, to claim there is no constitutional right of privacy that shields a woman from legislative majorities additionally misses the overall purpose of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Right was meant to be a restraint on government, whether or not government was acting based on majority opinion or not. If 99.9% of the residents of a given area said that atheists should not be permitted to run for office, the size of that majority would not overcome a nonbeliever's constitutional right to seek office.
Also the reality of unwanted pregnancies for minors are such that if a minor must notify her parents or seek their actual consent before she can terminate a pregnancy, she may be physically prevented from getting the abortion. Kids shouldn't be forced to give birth to kids.
The issue here is that Roe allowed for restrictions after viability, whether or not a state availed itself of this legislative leeway for enacting them. I think it was not too much to ask of anti choice activists to seek no more than than this and otherwise allow women free rein over a process occurring entirely within their bodies.