Thoughts on Dobbs vs. Jackson (clinic)

I had not intended to take time on this, but I think, in the aftermath of Dobbs vs. Jackson (clinic) it's important for voices for sanity to be heard.

(I should not be understood to assert that I am, myself, especially sane, but I think my voice for carefully considered response is a voice for sanity.)

First, Roe vs. Wade was right but wrong. It used bad legal reasoning to come to a conclusion that was expedient and probably even necessary at the time. Also, the legalistic guidelines in the decision did constitute judicial legislation.

Likewise, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, while it sort-of fixed the judicial legislation problem, attempted, but failed, to fix the legal basis of Roe vs. Wade. 

And we need a legal basis. 

Without a legal basis, we have have the nation riding a seesaw that is threatening to come off its fulcrum or just break because too many people are riding it too hard.

I do not like the idea of amending the Constitution. Amendments tend to turn out to be atomic bombs when wrenches or hammers should have been sufficient.

The Constitution would allow Congress to pass a bill that 

1. encourages the States to refrain from creating a legal framework or even an environment of repression against women in laws regulating abortion, 
2. encourages the States to pass the actual duty and authority for regulation down to individual communities, and
   
3. prohibits any state from punishing anyone who crosses state or community boundaries to obtain, assist, or perform an abortion in another state or community.
   

Yes, when I say "encourage", I do mean that we must give the states and communities room to try to figure out the best approaches for their people. 

(Really, this is what should have happened immediately after the decision in Casey at the very latest.)

Note that I am not taking a middle-of-the-road approach here. I am firmly of the conviction that abortion, while not exactly murder, is close enough to killing that the current anything-goes attitude has become a moral albatross, and an indirect contributor to the public ennui that breeds violence in general. 

(Don't kid yourself. Ennui does breed violence, and is the primary driver in the current expansion of violence. This world was never intended, by nature, evolution, or any other creative force by which it may have come into existence, to be completely friction-free. 

By whatever means we came into existence as a species or race, we are problem-solvers. We need problems to solve. This is, in fact, one of those great chances for us to act together to actually work to solve a problem instead of just trying to throw money and legalistic rules at it.)

I am also firmly of the conviction that a woman must know that she has means of recourse against incest, rape, serious health issues, and even seduction. 

Abortion should not be the first suggestion. The technology may be safer now for the mother than in the past, but it still is not risk-free. And, really, it runs against the human drive to preserve the species, even if you don't find any other moral issue with it. (Among other moral consequences, consider that men who encourage the women they have sex with to have abortions do not learn self-control any more than the women who resort to abortion to appease them learn how to say no.)

Abortion should remain available as one option. 

Other options need to be presented at a much higher priority, such as support for women who are pregnant and/or raising children without a support system. Yes, we need to revisit the welfare system of the welfare state we have created.

You just can't have a national welfare system that works. Too many of the details can't be determined without context, and the context does not exist at the national level. Even the States are too large these days, but they have a better chance of being able to set up a framework for the individual communities to work within.

One thing we can do at the national and state level is provide incentives (both negative and positive) to corporations and individuals who cross state lines to make excessive profits to let social conscience become a greater motivation in employment, work environment and scheduling. (What? am I attempting a radical change in topic? Nooo --)

Among other things, here's one idea that many hypercompetitive types seem to think has gone out of style, but --

Yes, employees raising children and/or taking care of elderly parents (etc.) do deserve at least equal effective pay compared with single employees because, even if they need more time off, they are helping maintain the economic ecology within which the company makes its profits. The taxation and corporate regulation systems could be fixed to encourage corporations and their investors to do so.

The problems we are facing as a society are deeply, deeply tangled, and trying to fix any one of them with a quick, big ideological band-aid is just not going to work.