> ... relaxing the federal regulations could have some effect in maintaining access in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that guts abortion rights. If conserva

> ... relaxing the federal regulations could have some effect in maintaining access in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that guts abortion rights. If conservative-led states are allowed to fully prohibit abortion, it is likely that abortion seekers -- particularly in the South and Midwest -- will have to drive hundreds of miles to reach their nearest clinics. It's a policy hack to circumvent state legislatures that may restrict it, which is probably the more interesting part of the issue. I understand it tactically, but it seems like an inflection point on the integrity of the union. It's a weak move that signals a lack of popular assent, and suggests federalism is on its back foot even without its critics in power. The issue is the lynchpin of individual feminine autonomy and the question of whether a society is contstructed to serve men and women as equals, or the society provides people exceptions and relief from every other harsh element and conseqeunce of nature except this one - and then what the demarcation point of this society and its laws happens to be. It is a very pragmatic and necessary natural freedom, but it's a very thorny right to enforce with anything less than a "shall make no law" constitutional amendment about bodily integrity, and it seems almost easier to argue about moralities and legalisms around abortion than to reconcile the enforcement of it as a right with the powers, legitimacy, and the reach of a the state. I think articulating a constitutional amendment that makes a rule about the government instead of women is probably the best way to resolve it.